
' • I •• • AT «^ • • • v^ 



"V^^%°'' \J'^^V^ "v'^%o'>' "^.^ 












CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES 



OF 



JOSIAH QUINCY 

1805-1813. 



SPEECHES 



DELIVERED IN THE 



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 



By JOSIAH QUINCY, 

Member of the House of Representatives for the Suffolk 
District of Massachusetts, 

1805-1813. 



EDITED BY HIS SON, 

EDMUND QUINCY, 

FELLOW OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OP ARTS AND SCIENCES ; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN 

PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, AND OF THE HISTORICAL 

SOCIETIES OF MASSACHCSETTS AND NEW, HAMPSHIRE. 





BOSTON: 
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 

1874. 



'"^^Nit^''' 



ETso? 



Q7 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 

EDMUND QUINCT, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



CAMBRIDGE: 
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 



PREFACE. 



Seven years ago, — September, 1867, — I pub- 
lished a Life of my father, which had a reception 
from the public of the most gratifying description, 
far beyond my warmest hopes. Five editions were 
disposed of in the course of two years, and the 
demand has not yet entirely ceased. This success 
I attribute chiefly to the interest felt in my father 
by the many eminent and useful men in all parts of 
the country who gratefully remembered his influ- 
ence on their characters while President of the 
University, as well as by the newer generation 
who learned to know and admire him from the 
active part he took in the political agitations which 
went before the Civil War, and the Emancipa- 
tion which it compelled. It was, however, my 
opinion then, as it is now, that his permanent rep- 
utation, after the generation that knew him per-, 
sonally shall have passed away, and his claim to a 
modest place in the history of his country, rest 
rather upon his action on the wider scene of 
national politics at "Washington, at a most inter- 
esting and critical period of our affairs. I there- 
fore made liberal extracts from his Congressional 
Speeches as an integral and vital portion of his 



VI PREFACE. 

life, and I have reason to think that these were 
regarded by the best of my readers as adding 
largely to the interest of the book. My own 
opinion being thus re-enforced, I venture to offer 
to the public this collection of his Congressional 
Speeches in full, hoping that it may be regarded 
as an illustration, not without value, of the spirit 
and temper of the times when they were uttered. 

The passage of history to which my father's Con- 
gressional career belongs, lies at that precise dis- 
tance from the present day which makes its facts 
indistinct to the minds of all of our contemporaries, 
excepting the daily dwindling number whose memo- 
ries go back to those times. It is too remote for the 
memory of the mass of living men, and not remote 
enough to tempt the hand of the philosophic his- 
torian. The period, however, from the inaugura- 
tion of Washington to that of Monroe, will be 
found full of materials for brilliant treatment by 
the American historian whom we yet wait for. 
Party spirit has never been so fierce and malignant, 
passions and opinions have never clashed so furi- 
ously, equally honest and patriotic men have never 
differed more bitterly or more sincerely, than in 
those far-off days. The old ideas encountered the 
new ideas, and the collision shook civil society to 
the centre. Great men, too, were called for, and 
appeared upon the scene, whose figures are now 
but indistinctly discerned through the mists of 
time, but who will yet be displayed in their just 
proportions by the light to be thrown upon them 
by genius. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher 



PBEFACE. VU 

Ames, William Pinkney, Samuel Dexter, Timothy 
Pickering, James A. Bayard, will again become 
the household words they were three quarters of a 
century ago. The germs of the union of the Dem- 
ocratic party and the Slave Oligarchy, which gave 
the nation over into the hands of the Slave Power 
for more than half a century, to be rescued only at 
the fearful cost of the Civil War, will there be 
detected and displayed. And the mischiefs of a 
doctrinaire statesmanship were never better shown 
than in the miseries inflicted upon the whole 
country, but especially upon the Northern Atlantic 
States, by the reduction to legislation of the 
political reveries of an ideologue like Mr. Jefferson, 
in the Embargo and the Non-Intercourse and the 
War of 1812, in which these measures naturally 
culminated, though unforeseen and undesired by 
their author. It is observable that the interest 
and importance of the portion of our national his- 
tory with which these speeches of Mr. Quincy have 
to do, were more fully understood and set forth by 
the London " Spectator," and " Pall Mall Gazette," 
and the Paris " Hevue des Deux Mondes," all of 
which journals had able and elaborate articles on his 
Life, than by some American periodicals, which 
inclined to regard it as an obscure and insignificant 
chapter in our annals.- When the historian of the 
future shall come to treat of those events, the 
public utterances of public men will be among his 
best materials for that revivification of the passions 
and opinions of the men of the time which forms 
the living spirit of history. I trust that this collec- 



Vlll PREFACE. 

tion will then be considered as neither useless nor 
unimportant as expressing the thoughts and emo- 
tions which made up the inner life of no inconsid- 
erable portion of the American people. 

As to the merit of these Speeches as specimens 
of parliamentary oratory, it is not for me to speak. 
Whatever may be their force and skill, critically 
considered, be the same less or more, I know that 
they are most characteristic of the man, and very ex- 
pressive of the sentiments and feelings of the noble 
Federal party to which he belonged, and which at 
one time he led. I should hardly, however, have 
presumed to collect them in this permanent form 
had I not been encouraged to do so by the judg- 
ments of men to which my own must bow, and 
which more than confirmed any estimation I might 
have put upon them myself. Among these en- 
couraging counsellors I may be permitted to name 
my valued friends, the late Senator Sumner, and 
Mr. Motley, the historian of the Dutch Republic, 
both of whom held opinions as to my father's rank 
among parliamentary orators which I shall not ven- 
ture to repeat, and which I cannot but consider as 
heightened in some degree by their reverential affec- 
tion for his person. But, all allowances made, 
enough of encouragement remains, given by judges 
so eminent, to make it the less presumptuous in me 
to hope for a favorable reception for this collection 
from the small but enlightened class who care for 
matters of the sort. One thing I may be per- 
mitted to say of these Speeches of my father. 
They are his Speeches, as they came from his mind 



PREFACE. ix 

and from his lips without amendment or correction 
of mine. Some very eminent orators of our time 
have carefully revised and altered their speeches, 
or left them to the correction of their friends, years 
after they were delivered. Thus, doubtless, admi- 
rable literary performances have been secured to 
us, but they are not the speeches as they were 
uttered by the speakers in the heat of debate, char- 
acteristic of the men and of the times, and perhaps 
rather smell of the lamp than savor of the Senate- 
house. My father never cared enough about the 
matter to do any thing of the kind, and I consider 
it the part both of filial duty and of good taste to 
present his speeches to the public of to-day as they 
were addressed to the public of seventy years since. 
I feel that any attempt of mine to improve his style 
would only impair its force and injure its character- 
istic qualities. I have confined myself, therefore, 
as editor, to the correction of obvious errors of the 
press, or of the imperfect reporting of those times, 
and 1 have thus endeavored to print these Speeches 
as nearly as possible as he spoke them. 

I have ventured to prefix to each Speech a short 
introduction explaining the political circumstances 
under which it was delivered. I judged that some 
elucidation of the kind would be useful to readers 
who are not familiar with the history of those 
times. I have made them as brief as is consistent 
with this object. 

Dedham, Massachusetts, 
November 1st, 187-i. 



C N T E N T S. 



Page 
Speech on the Bill for fortifying the Ports and Harbors of the 

United States. April 15, 1806 3 

Speech on the Bill for authorizing the President to suspend the 
Embargo under certain Circumstances. April, 1808 ... 31 

Speech on the first Resolution reported by the Committee on 

Foreign Relations. Nov. 28, 1808 53 

Second Speech on the Report of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations ; in reply to the Observations of Mr. Bacon. 
Dec. 7, 1808 83 

Speech on the Bill for raising Fifty Thousand Volunteers. 

Dec. 30, 1808 Ill 

Speech on the Bill for holding an Extra Session of Congress in 
May next. Jan. 19, 1809 129 

Speech on the Resolution of Censure on Francis J. Jackson, 

the British Minister. Dec. 28, 1809 157 

Speech on the Passage of the Bill to enable the People of the 
Territory of Orleans to form a Constitution and State Gov- 
ernment, and for the Admission of such State into the Union. 
Jan. 14, 1811 193 

Speech on the Influence of Place and Patronage. Jan. 30, 1811. 227 



Xll CONTENTS. 

Page 
Speech on the Proposition to revive and enforce the Non-inter- 
course Law against Great Britain. Feb. 25, 1811 . . . 247 

Speech on the Enlistment of Minors. Jan. 5, 1813. . . . 277 

Speech in relation to Maritime Protection. Jan. 25, 1812 . . 291 

Speech on the Relief of Sundry Merchants from Penalties inno- 
cently incurred. Dec. 14, 1812 331 

Speech on the Invasion of Canada. Jan. 5, 1813 357 



SPEECH 

ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS 
AND HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

April 15, 1806. 



SPEECH 

ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS AND 
HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

April 15, 1806. 



[The state of affairs, domestic and foreign, at the beginning of 
1806 was briefly this. Of the sympathies and antipathies of the 
Federal and Democratic parties in relation to France and Eng- 
land, I have given some account in the preface to this volume. 
For the quarter of a century, from the beginning of the French 
Revolution to the battle of Waterloo, the hopes, the fears, the 
passions, and the politics of the United States were indissolubly 
connected with those of Europe. We were, during those years, 
in continual danger of being drawn into the wars which, with 
brief intervals of truce, occupied the nations of Europe. It was 
against this peril that the warning voice of Washington was 
raised in his Farewell Address when he admonished his country- 
men to beware of " entangling alliances " with foreign powers. 
These were no superfluous words of caution, and it is likely that 
it was our poverty rather than our will that restrained us from 
taking a part, most disastrous to ourselves, on one side or the 
other of those fateful conflicts, according as sympathy with 
France or with England had the ascendant in the public opinion 
of the time. 

Previous to 1805, these wars had indeed been of direct benefit 
to the United States. Being the only neutral power of any 
maritime importance, the carrying-trade was almost entirely in 
American hands. All the colonial productions of France and 



4 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

Holland and of Spain, since her alliance with Fi-ance, were first 
brought to some American port and thence reshipped to the 
respective mother countries. The American ship-owners, thus 
having the advantage of double freights, carried on an im- 
mensely 2:)rofitable business ; and large fortunes, as they were 
esteemed in those simple days, were made in it. The English 
government at last discerned that this system gave France the 
benefit of the trade of her own colonies and those of her allies 
almost as fully as in time of peace. So the Courts of Admiralty 
revised the old doctrines of International Law, and confiscated 
several American cargoes on the ground that our flag was used 
as the cover of a fraudulent transaction, the property having 
never really belonged to the American merchant, having been 
landed in the neutral port merely for reshipment to a hostile 
one. 

These decisions, destroying as they did a most lucrative trade, 
created great dissatisfaction ; and they were the beginning of 
those unfriendly relations between the two countries which 
finally culminated in the War of 1812. And, although the neu- 
trality of the United States was vitally beneficial to France and 
Spain, they could not resist the temptation our rich merchant- 
vessels offered to their cruisers, which often seized them on 
small pretexts, or none at all, and thus gave rise to the French 
and Spanish claims of our later history. Besides these compli- 
cations, we were in a condition of very dubious friendship with 
Spain, which had then some remains of her former pride and 
power. In 1803 Bonaparte sold Louisiana to the United States 
under circumstances which colored our whole history for two 
generations, and of which we shall give an account by and by. 
Spain had ceded back to France, in 18-00, this territory which 
she had received from that power, in 1762, in compensation for, 
her losses in the war which ended in the conquest of Canada. 
Whatever motives induced this action, it was certainly without 
the expectation that this territory would be almost immediately 
handed over to a growing republic conterminous with her other 
North American possessions. Had she been strong enough it 
might even have been made a casus belli. As it was, she pro- 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 5 

tested energetically against the treaty of 1803; actually occu- 
pied posts within our undoubted boundaries ; and her minister, 
Irujo, treated President Jefierson with insolent contempt. 

Our foreign relations being in this queasy condition, when a 
slight and unforeseen contingency might bring a fleet upon our 
coasts and into the harbors of our cities, it seemed as if some 
kind of preparation should be made against such a possibility. 
Mr. Jefferson did not deny this, and he urged the neces- 
sity of preparation against possible hostilities. But, in his 
morbid fear of spending money, he limited his suggestion to the 
equipping of gun-boats to lie in wait for the enemy and issue 
from their ambush on his approach, and to a classification of the 
militia, by which, on the appi'oach of danger, the younger men 
should forsake the plough and the work-bench and rush to the 
rescue. The Federalists, and especially those representing the 
commercial States, thought these precautions quite insufficient. 
As the commerce of the country furnished almost the entire sup- 
port of the government, and had provided the fifteen millions 
required for the jjurchase of Louisiana and the two millions for 
that of Florida, they deemed it but reasonable that a moderate 
proportion of the money they supplied should be spent in the 
fortification of the Atlantic cities. During the seventeen years 
of our national existence, only seven hundred and twenty-four 
thousand dollars had been spent for the fortification of the nine 
chief commercial cities ! By the bill, during the discussion of 
which the following speech was delivered, one hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars was appropriated for the defence of New York, 
and a motion to substitute five hundred thousand was treated 
with contempt and received only twenty-seven votes. All prop- 
ositions to increase the amount, or to leave a blank sum to be used 
at the discretion of the President, were laughed to scorn. — Ed.] 

Mr. Chairman, — Gentlemen seem disposed to treat 
this subject lightly, and to indulge themselves in pleas- 
antries, on a question very serious to the commercial 
cities and to the interest of those who inhabit them. It 



6 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 

may be sport to you, gentlemen, but it is death to us. 
However well disposed a majority of this House may be 
to treat this bill ludicrously, it will fill great and influ- 
ential portions of this nation with very dilferent senti- 
ments. Men, who have all that human nature holds 
dear — friends, fortunes, and families — concentrated in 
one single spot on the sea-coast, and that spot exposed 
every moment to be plundered and desolated, will not 
highly relish or prize at an extreme value, the wit or 
the levity, with which this House seems inclined to 
treat the dangers which threaten them ; and which are 
sources to them of great and just apprehensions. I do 
not rise, Mr. Chairman, merely to suj^port the motion 
made by the gentleman from New York. It is not the 
fortification of this or that particular city which I mean 
to advocate. I should have preferred a general appro- 
priation, leaving it to the discretion of the executive to 
apply it to those ports and harbors which are either 
most exposed or most important. And if, by any thing 
that shall occur in the course of the discussion, the 
House shall be induced to change what at present 
seems to be its disposition, I hope the augmented ap- 
propriation will be made in that form. It is to the 
general duty which is incumbent upon this legislature 
to protect the commercial cities, that I would call its 
attention. This duty is so plain and imperious, that, in 
my opinion, an awful weight of responsibility rests upon 
this House. Every class and collection of citizens have 
a right to claim from government that species of pro- 
tection which their situation requires, in proportion to 
their exposure, and to the greatness of the stake which 
society has in their safety. Our obligation to protect 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 7 

the commercial cities does not result from the particular 
exigency Avhich at present impends over our nation, 
but from the nature of tliose cities. The duty is perma- 
nent and ought to be fulfilled by a permanent system. 
A regular course of annual appropriations may in a very 
few 3ears put all our capital cities in a state of reason- 
able security, and, at no very distant period of time, 
without any additional imposition on the people, give 
ever}^ city on our coast an adequate defence. It is in 
this light that I consider the question now before the 
committee to be important. Not that any sum which 
may be inserted will be immediately sufficient for all 
the objects for which we have to provide. But that 
any augmentation of the appropriation will be a pledge 
to the nation of the disposition of this House to com- 
mence a system of defence for our cities : any evidence 
of which will give just satisfaction to great masses of 
your citizens, as an appearance of a want of it will fill 
them Avitli no less discontent and dismay. In this point 
of view I ask the indulgence of the committee to a few 
observations on the importance of fortifications, their 
utility and practicability. 

As to the importance of the objects for which we 
ask a defence, it seems to me either not understood or 
not realized. Almost all who have spoken on the sub- 
ject have dwelt chiefly, if not altogether, on the amount 
of revenue drawn from the commercial cities; as if their 
value was to be appreciated, and our duty to defend 
them measured, by the annual produce they yield. 
This, it is true, makes a natural part of the estimate of 
their worth, but, as I apprehend, by no means the most 
important. Their situation, the number of the inhab- 



8 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

itants, the great i)ortion of the active and fixed capital 
of society which they contain, are, in a national view, 
standards much more just and more elevated by which 
to ascertain their value and our obligations. I ask, sir, 
what is the amount of the capital of this nation which 
is invested in the single city of New York ? The 
annual product it yields to our revenue is three mil- 
lions of dollars. Now suppose the average of imjDort 
duties is only ten per cent ad valorem (a sum certainly 
below the real average), the annual amount of capital 
deposited in imports is then thirty millions of dollars. 
The amount of value in exports cannot be estimated at 
less than twenty millions. If to these be added the 
capital of its banks, the amount of stock always on hand, 
that of its ship23ing and other personal property, — all of 
which no one can rate below another fifty millions, — the 
result is that there is in annual deposit, within the city 
of New York alone, one hundred millions of the active 
capital of this nation. I know how far this is below the 
real estimate, but I state this sum that no one may hesi- 
tate to admit my position. I ask, then, what is it worth 
to insure this sum against the risk of an invasion, not 
on calculations on the great national scale, but on a 
mere insurance-office arithmetic? I have been told that 
to insure that cit}'- against such a risk, for one single 
year of war with any of the great maritime nations of 
Europe, would be worth five per cent. That is the in- 
surance for a single year of war would repay the expense 
of fortifications, even should they cost five millions of dol- 
lars. But, suppose this calculation extravagant, can any 
one doubt that such an insurance in time of peace, 
against the double risk of war and of attack in case of 



THE PORTS AND HAEBOKS. 9 

war, is worth one-half per cent? Even at this premium, 
six years of insurance in time of peace would repay 
the expenditure of three millions, — a sum more than 
adequate to the defence of that city. In making this 
statement, I would not be understood to pretend or to 
propose such an appropriation : it is not asked. My 
object is to call gentlemen to consider what is the mar- 
ket worth of security, and that they may not deem the 
moneys they apply to these objects — as they seem will- 
ing to deem them — absolutely thrown away. This 
great mass of the national wealth, thus concentrated 
on the bank of one of the most exposed harbors in 
the world, is liable to the insult and depredation of 
the most despicable force. Two seventy-four gun- 
ships may, at this moment, lay that city under contribu- 
tion or in ashes with impunity. They might make it 
the interest of the inhabitants of that city to pay an 
amount equal to the whole annual revenue we derive 
from it, rather than to submit to the hazard and mis- 
eries of bombardment and conflagration. For in such 
case the mere destruction of property is but an item in 
the account of anticipated misfortune. The shock to 
credit ; the universal stagnation of business ; the terror 
spread through every class, age, and sex ; the thousands 
who have no refuge in the country, but must take the 
fate, and be buried under the ruins, of their city, — all 
these circumstances would enter into consideration, and 
make the pecuniary sacrifice, however great, appear 
trifling in comparison. I have used the city of New 
York only by way of example. The same observations 
are applicable to every other commercial city in the 
United States in proportion to its magnitude and the 



10 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

nature of its situation. Two seventy-fours might sweep 
the coast from Savannah to Portland, and levy an 
amount equal to the whole annual revenue of the 
United States. It would be better for any city volun- 
tarily to pay a contribution equal to its proportion of 
that amount, rather than to take the alternative of that 
destruction to which, on refusal, it would be obliged to 
submit. Is such a state of things as this a light and 
trifling concern ? Are such portions of the wealth of 
the community to be left exposed to the caprice of 
every plunderer ; and are propositions to protect them 
to be treated with contempt or ridicule? Can any duty 
be more solemn or imperious than that which has for its 
object a rational degree of security for those ports in 
the United States which are bej^ond all others exposed 
to hostile attack, at the same time that they comprise, 
within the smallest possible compass, immense masses 
of the national wealth and population ? 

The importance, then, of the objects to be defended 
will be admitted. But the utility of fortifications, as a 
means of defence, and their practicability in certain 
ports and harbors, are denied. With respect to the gen- 
eral utility of fortifications, I ask, by whom is it denied ? 
By men interested in that species of defence ? By the 
inhabitants of cities ? By those the necessity of whose 
situation has turned their attention to the nature of 
fortifications and their efficacy ? No, sir : these men 
solicit them. They are anxious for nothing so much. 
They tell you, the safety of all they hold dear, — their 
wives, their children, their fortunes, and lives are staked 
upon your decision. They do not so much as ask for- 
tifications as a favor : they claim them as a right. They 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 11 

demand them. Who are they, then, that deny their 
utihty ? Why, men from the interior. Men who 
in one breath tell you they know nothing about the 
subject, and in the next pass judgment against the adop- 
tion of any measures of defence. It is true, sir, to men 
who inhabit the White Hills of New Hampshire, or the 
Bine Ridge of Virginia, nothing can appear more abso- 
lutel}' useless than appropriations for the defence of the 
sea-coast. In this, as in all other cases, men reason 
very coolly and philosophically concerning dangers to 
which they are not themselves subject. All men, for 
the most part, bear with wonderful composure the mis- 
fortunes of other people. And, if called to contribute 
to their relief, they are sure to find, in the cold sugges- 
tions of economy, apologies enough for failure in their 
social duties. The best criterion of the utility of forti- 
fications is the practice and experience of other nations. 
Xow, I ask, was there ever a nation which did not 
defend its great commercial deposits, by either land 
fortifications or sea batteries? All history does not 
exhibit such an instance. Are we wiser, then, than all 
other nations ; or are we less exposed than they ? Are 
we alone to escape the common lot of humanity ? Can 
we expect to be rich, and not tempt the spirit of ava- 
rice ? To be defenceless amid armed pirates, and in no 
danger of robbery or insult ? I ask again, sir, how -is 
the inutility of fortifications proved ? Suppose, for the 
sake of argument, it should be admitted — which, how- 
ever, I deny — that they cannot be erected in sufficient 
force to defeat very great armaments ; yet is it nothing to 
prevent the piratical attempts of single ships? Is it 
nothing to deter an invader ? Nothing even to delay an 



12 SPEECH OX FORTIFYING 

attack ? Is it worth nothing to have the chance of 
crippling an assailant ? The only argument I have 
heard urged against the utility of fortifications is, that 
the whole coast cannot be fortified ; so that, protect as 
strongly as you m411 particular points, the invader will 
land somewhere else. Sir, this is the very object of 
fortifications. No man ever thought of building a Chi- 
nese wall along all the indentations of our shore, from 
the St. Mary's to the St. Croix. The true object of 
fortifications is to oblige your enemies to land : it is to 
keep them at arm's length. If the}^ cannot reach j^our 
cities with their batteries, and would attack, the}' must 
come on shore. They are then only a land force, and 
our militia will find no difficulty in giving a good 
account of them. The only remaining arguments in the 
possession of this House, against the utility of fortifica- 
tions, are the opinions of various gentlemen, delivered 
on this floor ; and that of the secretary at war, as stated 
in his report. As to the former, they certainly do not 
merit a serious refutation, because no gentleman who 
has spoken has pretended to a practical or even theo- 
retical knowledge of the subject ; but, on the contrary, 
most, if not all of them, have candidly confessed their 
ignorance. It is of more importance to consider the 
opinion of the secretary at war. That part of his 
report which relates to the harbor of New York con- 
tains his general opinion against the practicability of 
defending such a harbor by land batteries, and two 
facts in support of that opinion. Now, as to the gen- 
eral opinion of the secretary, I am w^illing to allow it 
whatever weight an}- gentleman may choose to attach 
to it ; but certainly it ought not to be conclusive in an 



THE POETS AND HARBOES. 13 

affair of such immense importance ; especially when it 
is contradicted by the tenor of the applications on your 
table, and by the opinions of other individuals of as 
high militar}' and scientific reputation as the secretary. 
Much less does this his opinion claim from us an implicit 
confidence ; since the only two facts he has chosen to 
adduce are very far from being a sufficient basis for the 
broad opinion he has built on them. The first fact is 
one which occurred in the harbor of New York in 
1776. A British ship of forty guns passed the batteries 
on the Hudson, under circumstances favorable to the 
effect of the batteries, and sustained " a tremendous 
fire " without being sensibly " incommoded." Allowing 
this fact its full force, it can weigh but little against the 
utility or practicability of fortifications. That was the 
second year of the war. Our batteries were erected on 
a sudden emergency. Our artillerists had probably 
little experience. Will it be pretended that the bat- 
teries this nation, in its present state of affluence and 
experience can erect, will not exceed, both in location 
and power, those which at that time protected the 
Hudson ? Besides, to draw from a particular instance 
a general conclusion is contrary to all rules of just 
logic. Various circumstances, altogether accidental, 
might have occurred to have produced that result, 
which might never occur again. If this instance be a 
good argument against the validity of land fortifications, 
there is an equally strong argument in the history of 
our revolution against the fashionable mode of defence 
by gun-boats. I take the fact only from verbal infor- 
mation ; and, if I am incorrect, there are gentlemen on 
this floor who can set me right. During the war, a 



14 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

British frigate of forty-four guns, called the " Roebuck," 
took ground in the Delaware ; and though we had gun- 
boats quantum sufficit, who pelted her to their hearts' con- 
tent, during one whole tide, she received no manner of 
injury, at least none of any importance. If I have this 
fact correctly, it is just as strong against the efficacy of 
gun-boats as that produced by the secretary is against 
land batteries. One Avord here concerning this mode of 
defence by gun-boats, which seems to concentrate all 
the naval affections of our rulers, and to have on freight 
all their military hopes. It is not denied that these are 
weapons of considerable effect ; or that in certain situa- 
tions they are useful ; or that, in aid of other and heavier 
batteries, they may not sometimes be important. It is 
only when they become the favorites, to the total exclu- 
sion of more j)Owerful modes of defence, and draw 
away to the less power appropriations which are want- 
ing for the greater, that the system which upholds 
them becomes an object of contemjit or of dread. 
Nowadays, sir, put what you will into the crucible, — 
whether it be seventy-fours, or frigates, or land batteries, 
— the result is the same : after due swelterinQ- in the lee- 
islative furnace, there comes out nothing but gun-boats. 
I ask if our cities are attacked by any maritime nation, 
will it not be by line-of-battle shij)s ; and who ever 
heard that a line-of-battle ship was defeated by gun- 
boats ? I do not pretend to be learned in these matters ; 
but, as far as I have been able to gain information, it is, 
that when there is any thing of a heavy sea, even such 
as is often in the harbor of New York, gun-boats are of 
very little efficac3^ It is true, in case of a calm, if they 
can get their object at rest they have a great advantage ; 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 15 

that is, if 3'ou can get the bird to stand still until you 
can put salt upon its tail, you can catch the bird. But 
the worst of it is, that it is too cunning for that. The 
ship of the line chooses its own time for the attack, and 
will always select that which is least favorable to its 
adversary. 

But to return to the report of the secretary at war. 
The next fact it states is the battle of Copenhagen. 
Now if this be adduced merely as an evidence of a par- 
ticular instance of the inefficacy of land batteries, I do 
not think it important enough to take the time to 
examine. The true question is not whether New York 
can be defended in a particular way, but whether it is 
capable of defence at all, by combining land with float- 
ing batteries. In this point of view, the instance 
adduced by the secretary is perhaps the most memora- 
ble on record, and the one, of all others, in which those 
who advocate a defence of our commercial cities ought 
to exult as in an incontrovertible evidence of the truth 
of their system. What was the fact ? One of the best 
appointed naval armaments of the most powerfid mar- 
itime nation in the world, under her most favored and 
fortunate commander, was sent to attack Copenhagen. 
The Danes were taken by surprise. Every thing, 
apparently, was in favor of the assailant and against 
those who acted on the defensive. To fifteen line-of- 
battle ships, the Danes had nothing to oppose but their 
land and liarbor batteries, fortifications, and block ships. 
And what was the result? Why that, after a most 
bloody and well-contested battle, the British first asked 
a truce. To this day the Danes claim the victory. 
Olfort Fischer, the Danish commander, in his official 



16 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

statement of the battle, declares that, before the flag 
of truce was offered, two of the British ships of the 
line had struck their colors, and that for some time their 
whole line was so weakened that it fired only single 
guns. Intelligent Europeans assert, and even candid 
Englishmen will allow, that, if ever Nelson was beaten, 
it was on that occasion. But suppose all this to be 
erroneous. Suppose that Nelson obtained a real victory, 
does it thence result that the fortifications and the 
block ships with which Copenhagen Avas defended were 
useless ? By no means. Still that battle is an illustri- 
ous and irrefragable instance of their utility. It is a 
fact on record, worth a million theories, in favor of the 
efficacy of a harbor defence against a maritime force. 
Sir, the end for which those batteries were erected is 
attained. Copenhagen is defended. The storm Avhich 
would have desolated the city has spent its force on the 
artificial shield. Let gentlemen calculate the probable 
cost of those batteries, and suppose by expending a 
similar sum in the harbor of New York, that city might 
be defended as Copenhagen was and from a like danger. 
Is there a man that can hesitate as to the wisdom of 
such an expenditure ? Sir, the cit}^ of Copenhagen on 
that day was preserved from a devastation which the 
cost of twenty such batteries would not have repaired. 
I conclude, then, that our commercial cities can be 
defended, even the most exposed of them: land bat- 
teries combined with harbor batteries are equal to the 
object. To this question of practicability, concerning 
which so much is said, I humbly conceive this not 
the place where it ought to be decided. It belongs 
to the executive. That is the proper department to 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 17 

examine into it. Our duty is to make the appro- 
priations, to show at least a disposition to defend. 
If New York cannot be defended, is it the same case 
with Charleston, Savannah, or Norfolk ? Shall we leave 
the whole defenceless, because a particular part is vul- 
nerable ? Sir, let us confess the truth. The limit of 
our power to defend is not in the nature of the cities, 
but in our disposition to appropriate. Not in the inefifi- 
cacy of land or harbor batteries, but in our insensibility 
to the danger of the commercial cities and unwilling- 
ness to make the pecuniary sacrifices their protection 
requires. On all sides we are met with the objection, 
" Where are the means ? " " How is the public debt 
to be discharged, if we incur such an expense ? " Mr. 
Chairman, none of these difficulties are insurmountable, 
when southern land is to be purchased, or when our new 
territories on the Missouri and Red River are to be ex- 
plored, or when Indian titles in the western country are 
to be extinguished. We have paid within these two years 
fifteen millions of dollars for Louisiana, and have sent 
off two millions more to purchase the Floridas. I ask 
on what principle can either of these purchases be 
made palatable to the people of the United States? 
Do they want more land or wider dominions? On 
neither of these considerations would they for one 
moment have submitted to either purchase. It was 
because the possession of the Mississippi thrcfugh its 
whole course was essential to the security and happiness 
of our brethren beyond the mountains, that the pur- 
chase of Louisiana was sanctioned by public opinion, 
and if ever that of the Floridas receives the acquies- 
cence of the people, it will only be from the conviction 



18 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 

that the possession of those countries is necessary for 
the tranquillity of our southern frontier. All this we 
have done for the security of the south and west : we 
now ask for reciprocity ; grant us something for the 
security of the north and east. Let not the people see 
that all the incomes proceed from one quarter of the 
Union, and all the expenditures are made in another. 
Let them not learn from experience, that the ball of 
favoritism and that of empire is travelling south and 
west. I ask, what are the Floridas, or what is Louisi- 
ana, in comparison with the single city of New York ? 
This city alone is worth forty Louisianas. Yet when 
Louisiana was purchased, did the increase of the public 
debt prevent the bargain? Or, later, was the question 
of " means " an obstacle to the appropriation for the 
Floridas ? The seventeen millions of dollars thus ex- 
pended for the security of the south would have put 
every commercial city of the United States into a com- 
plete state of defence. I do not, Mr. Chairman, intro- 
duce the purchase of Louisiana and the Floridas in this 
connecrion lightly, or without antecedent reflection : I 
would hold up to this house a mirror in which it may 
contemplate itself and see its own features. It is 
impossible not to remark that the sympathies of the 
majority of this legislature do not extend to the sea- 
coast. But whatever will meliorate the condition of 
the interior excites all its sensibilities and awakens all 
its anxieties. Look at this moment on your table: 
there are now no less than four, I believe five, Indian 
treaties which have been ratified the present session, 
the appropriations for which occasion no alarm about 
the public faith or the public purse. It is worth our 



THE POtlTS AND HARBORS. 19 

while to notice the particulars. By these treaties the 
United States agree to pay : — 

First, cash down $37,000 

Next, the following annuities : — 

$1,600 for ten years 1G,000 

$12,000 for eight years 9G,000 

$11,000 for ten years 110,000 

$259,G00 

In addition to which we are to pay other annuities, 
amounting to $4,000 for ever. These last cannot be 
estimated at less in any market than $50,000, but 
which I rate only at 40,000 



$300,000 

Besides whicli, our appropriation for the Indian de- 
partment and for the support of the civil government 
of Louisiana, and our otlier south-western territory, 
exceed 150,000 

$450,000 

Thus in this single session we shall have appropriated 
four hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for the security 
and protection of the south-west. But for our i)orts 
and harbors, an appropriation of one hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars for the mere repair of old fortifications 
is thought to be an enormous expenditure. Even this 
is violently opposed. But any additional sum to begin 
new works is not only hopeless, but cannot even be 
named without exciting a smile of contempt. 

Now let us look at the other side of the account. It 
will be found, by the report on your table, that the 
nine capital cities of the Union — Portland, Portsmouth, 



20 SPEECH ON FOKTIFYING 

Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
Norfolk, and Charleston — have had expended in fortifi- 
cations for their defence, since the establishment of the 
federal government, only seven hundred and twenty -four 
thousand dollars ! That is to say, your appropriations 
in one session, for the security and comfort of the south- 
west, is more than half the whole amount expended 
during sixteen years for the security of all these great 
commercial cities, which contain two or three hundred 
thousand inhabitants, and which paid into your treasury 
the last year upwards of nine millions of dollars ! It is 
impossible that this state of things should not be under- 
stood and realized by the people of these States ; and 
that at no very distant period. It requires only some 
actual suffering, some real misfortune, resulting from 
your ill-timed parsimony or misplaced affections, to 
rouse a spirit in the commercial States which will shake 
this Union to its foundation. Of all times those will be 
the most dreadful and the most to be deprecated by 
every real lover of his country, when the party passions 
shall run parallel to local interests. Whenever any 
great section of the Union shall deem itself neglected, 
and the opinion becomes general among the people that 
they are either sacrificed or abandoned, that they have 
not any, or not their just, weight in the national scale, a 
series of struggles must commence, which will terminate 
either in redress or in convulsions. Events of this kind 
are not to be prevented by common-place declamation 
about submission to the will of the majority. A real 
reciprocity must exist. Intelligent men must see and 
feel that a regard, proportionate to their real interest at 
stake in the society, is entertained for them by their 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 21 

rulers. With such perception and experience your 
Union is a bond of adamant which nothing can break. 
Without them, I will not say it will be dissolved, but 
this I will say, — it cannot be happy, even if it should 
be lasting. 

It is impossible to form a just estimate of our obliga- 
tions to defend the commercial cities, without having a 
right idea of the nature and importance of commerce to 
the eastern States, and attaining a just apprehension of 
its influence over every class of citizens in that quarter 
of the Union. From what has fallen from various gen- 
tlemen in the House, it is very apparent that they do 
not appreciate either its nature, its power, or the duties 
which result from our relation to those Avho are engaged 
in that pursuit. The gentleman from Virginia (INIr. J. 
Rawdolph) told us the other day, that " the United 
States was a great land animal, a great mammoth, 
which ought to cleave to the land, and not wade out 
into the ocean to fight the shark." Sir, the figure is very 
happy so far as relates to that quarter of the Union 
with which that gentleman is chiefl}^ conversant. Of 
the southern States, the mammoth is a correct type. 
But I ask, sir, suppose the mammoth has made a league 
with the cod, and that the cod, enterprising, active, and 
skilful, spreads himself over every ocean, and brings 
back the tribute of all climes to the feet of the mam- 
moth ; suppose he thereby enables the unwieldy animal 
to stretch his huge limbs upon cotton, or to rub his fat 
sides along his tobacco plantations, without paying the 
tithe of a hair, — in such case, is it wise, is it honorable, 
is it politic, for that mammoth, because by mere beef 
and bone he outweighs the cod in the political scale, to 



22 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 

refuse a portion of that revenue which the industry of 
the cod annually produces, to defend him in his natural 
element ; if not against the great leviathan of the deep, 
at least against the petty pikes which prowl on the 
ocean ; and if not in the whole course of his advent- 
urous progress, at least in his native bays and harbors, 
where his hopes and wealth are deposited and where his 
species congregate ? 

Other gentlemen have shown an equal want of a just 
apprehension of the nature and effects of commerce. 
Some think any of its great channels can be impeded or 
cut off without important injury. Others that it is a 
matter of so much indifference that we can very well do 
without it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Smilie) told us some days since, " that for his part he 
wished that at the time of our Revolution there had been 
no commerce." That honorable gentleman, I presume, 
is enamoured with Arcadian scenes, with happy valleys. 
Like a hero of pastoral romance at the head of some 
murmuring stream, with his crook by his side, his sheep 
feeding around, far from the temptations, unseduced by 
the luxuries of commerce, he would 

..." sport with Amaryllis in the shade, 
Or with the tangles of Netera's hair." 

I will not deny that these are pleasant scenes. Doubt- 
less they are well suited to the innocence, the purity, 
and the amiable unobtrusive simjDlicity of that gentle- 
man's mind and manners. But he must not expect that 
all men can be measured by his elevated standard, or 
be made to relish these sublime pleasures. Thousands 
and ten thousands in that part of the country I would 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 23 

rej)resent have no notion of rnral felicity, or of the tran- 
quil joj's of the conntiy. They love a life of activity, 
of enterprise, and hazard. They wonld rather see a 
boat-hook than all the crooks in the world ; and as for 
sheep, they never desire to see any thing more of them 
than just enough upon their deck to give them fresh 
meat once a week in a voyage. Concerning the land of 
which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph), 
and the one from North Carolina (Mr. Macon), think 
so much, they think very little. It is in fact to tliem 
only a shelter from the storm ; a perch 'on which they 
build their aerie and hide their mate and their young, 
while they skim the surface or hunt in the deep. The 
laws of society and the views of enlightened politicians 
ought to have reference, not to any ideal, theoretic state 
of human perfection, but to the equal protection and 
encouragement of every species of honorable industry. 
I know it has been said by way of apology for not doing 
any thing more in defence of commerce, that it already 
was indebted for its prosperity to our laws and regula- 
tions. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Ran- 
dolph) told us expressly " that the votes of southern 
men had given us our drawbacks and discriminating 
duties," whence he would conclude that our commerce 
and navigation had nothing more to ask at their hands. 
The honorable speaker, too, referred the prosperous con- 
dition of our commerce to the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion and to the provisions established under it. I am 
the last man in the world to deny the happy influence 
of that instrument in meliorating the condition of this 
nation. But our commercial prosperit}' is owing much 
more to accident and nature, and much less to law, than 



24 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

we are apt to imagine or are willing to allow. Every 
year we get together on this floor to consult concerning 
the public good. The state of commerce makes a capi- 
tal object in all our deliberations. We have our com- 
mittee of commerce and manufactures, and a great part 
of every session is exhausted in discussing their provi- 
sions, limitations, and restrictions, until at last we slide 
into the belief that commerce is of our creation ; that it 
has its root in the statute book ; that its sap is drawn 
from our parchment, and that it spreads and flourishes 
under the direct heat of the legislative ray. But what 
is the fact ? Look into your laws. What are they ? 
Nine-tenths — I should speak nearer the truth should I 
say ninety-nine-hundredths of them — are nothing more 
than means by which you secure your share of the 
products of commerce ; they constitute the machinery 
by which you pluck its Hesperian fruit, and have noth- 
ing to do with the root that supports it, or with the 
native vigor which exudes into this rich luxuriance. 
Sir, the true ta|)-root of commerce is found in the 
nature and character of the people who carry it on. 
They and their ancestors for nearly two centuries have 
been engaged in it. The industry of every class of men 
in the eastern States has reference to its condition, and 
is affected by it. Why then treat it as a small concern; 
as an affair only of traders and of merchants? Why 
intimate that agriculture can flourish without it ? when, 
in fact, the interests of these two branches of industry 
are so intimately connected that the slightest affection 
of the one is instantly communicated to the other. I 
know very well that there is a great difference between 
the relations of commerce and amculture in the south- 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 25 

em and in the eastern States. And this is one of the 
chief causes of that diversity of sentiment which pre- 
vails among those who dwell in these different parts of 
the Union. In the southern States there are compara- 
tively few, if any, who depend on commerce altogether 
for subsistence. Whatever affects commercial pros- 
perity produces no general distress or discontent, Per- 
haps insurance or freight may advance a little in 
consequence of its embarrassment. Perhaps one or 
other of their great staples may find not so ready or so 
high a market. But these inconveniences throw none 
out of employment or out of bread. Very different is 
the state of things in the eastern States. There com- 
merce is not merely as the honorable speaker called it, 
" a waggon, a mode of conveyance of product to the 
consumer ; " it is more, infinitely more : it establishes 
within the country an immense fund of internal con- 
sumption. All its dependants, merchants, tradesmen, 
mechanics, seamen, and laborers of every class and 
description, look to it, either for that j^rofit which makes 
a great portion of their happiness, or for that employ- 
ment on which their subsistence depends. 

The state of agriculture is adapted, and has been for 
centuries, to the supply of the wants of this internal 
consumption. The farmer is bound to commerce by a 
thousand intimate ties which, while it is in its ordinary 
state of prosperity, he neither sees nor realizes. But 
let the current stop and the course of business stagnate 
in consequence of any violent affection to commerce, the 
effect is felt as much, and in some cases more, by those 
who inhabit the mountains, as by those who dwell on 
the sea-coast. The country is associated with the city 



26 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 

in one common distress, not merely through S3nnpathy 
but b}'^ an actual perception of a union in misfortune. 
It is this indissoluble community of interest between 
agriculture and commerce, winch pervades the eastern 
portion of the United States, that makes our treatment 
of the commercial interest one of the most delicate, as 
well as important questions that can be brought before 
this legislature. That interest is not of a nature long 
to be neglected with impunity. Its powers, when once 
brought into action by the necessity of self-defence, 
cannot but be irresistible in this nation. Sir, two-fifths 
of your whole white population are commercial ; or, 
which is the same thing as to its political effect, have 
their happiness so dependent upon its prosperity that 
they cannot fail to act in concert when the object is to 
crush those who oppress or those who are willing to 
destroy it. Of the five millions which now constitute 
the white population of these States, two millions are 
north and east of New Jersey. This great mass is natu- 
rally and indissolubly connected with commerce. To 
this is to be added the like interest, and that of no 
inconsiderable weight, which exists in the middle and 
southern States. Are these powerful influences to be 
forgotten or despised ? Are such portions of the Union 
to be told that they are not to be defended, neither on the 
ocean nor yet on the land? Will they — ought they — 
to submit to a system which, at the same time that it 
extracts from their industry the whole national revenue, 
neither protects it abroad nor at home? It needs no 
spirit of prophecy to say they will not. It is no breach of 
any duty to say they ought not. No power on earth can 
prevent a party from growing up in these States in sup- 



THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 27 

port of the rights of commerce to a sea and land protec- 
tion. The state of things which must necessarily follow 
is of all others to be deprecated. As I have said before, 
when party passions run parallel to local interests of 
great power and extent, nothing can prevent national 
convulsions ; all the consequences of which can neither 
be numbered nor measured. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not introduce this idea to threaten 
or terrify. I speak I hope to wise men, — to men of 
experience and of acquaintance with human nature, 
both in history and by observation. Is it possible to 
content great, intelligent, and influential portions of 
your citizens by any thing short of a real attention to 
their interests, in some degree proportionate to their 
magnitude and nature ? When this is not the case, can 
any political union be either happy or lasting ? Now is 
the time to give a pledge to the commercial interests 
that they may be assured of protection, let Avhatever 
influence predominate in the legislature. A great ma- 
jority of this house are from States not connected inti- 
mately with commerce. Show, then, those which are, 
that you feel for them as brothers ; that you are willing 
to give them a due share of the national revenue for 
their protection. Show an enlightened and fair reci- 
procity. Be superior to any exclusive regard to local 
interest. On such principles this Union, so desirable 
and so justly dear to us all, will continue and be cher- 
ished by every member of the compact. But let a nar- 
row, selfish, local, sectional policy prevail, and struggles 
will commence, which will terminate, through irritations 
and animosities, in either a change of the s^^stem of gov- 
ernment or in its dissolution. 



SPEECH 



ON THE BILL FOR AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO 
SUSPEND THE EMBARGO UNDER CERTAIN CIR- 
CUMSTANCES. 

April, 1808. 



SPEECH 



ON THE BILL FOR AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO 
SUSPEND THE EMBARGO UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUM- 
STANCES. 

April, 1808. 



[Seventy yeai's ago commerce was the chief occupation of 
the sea-bound States, giving wealth to the capitalists and employ- 
ment to the masses. The course of England and France had 
done much to cripple the operations of trade ; but it was left 
for the government of the United States to give it its coup de 
[/race. The governing, or Democratic party, with Mr. Jefferson 
at its head, entertained very extravagant notions as to the impor- 
tance of American commerce to Eurojje, and especially to Eng- 
land. Mr. Jefferson thought he saw in commerce the means of 
carrying on a war with England, at the expense only of ruining 
the mercantile class and the multitude dependent upon it for sup- 
port. In these ideas an act forbidding the importation of cer- 
tain articles from England, including the principal objects of 
commerce, had been passed in 1806, known as the Non-impor- 
tation Act. But the final blow was held back until the Decem- 
ber of the next year, when the famous embargo was laid on the 
trade of the country. On the 18th of December, Mr. Jefferson 
sent to the Senate the very shortest message known to our his- 
tory, consisting of two sentences, recommending " the inhibition 
of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United 
States " in order to " keep in safety these essential resources." 
Obedient to this behest, the Senate passed the necessary act 
through all its stages in four hours, under a suspension of the 



32 SPEECH ON THE 

rules. In the House it occupied rather more time, but was car- 
ried by a strict party vote. The effect of this measure on the 
prosperity of the northern States, and especially of New Eng- 
land, was most calamitous. It was a blow dealt not merely at 
the prosperity of the rich, but at the daily bread of the poor. 
And they were told that all this was for their protection and 
their own good ! 

On the eve of the adjournment of Congress, the next Aj^ril, 
the ruling party saw that it was necessary to give the President 
some power over the embargo during the recess ; and an act was 
introduced authorizing him to suspend its operation in the event 
of peace between the European belligerents, or of such a change 
of policy on their part as to make our commerce safe. It was 
on this bill that Mr. Quincy made the following speech. He 
did not object to investing the President with the proposed 
power of suspending the embargo. He wished, on the con- 
trary, to make this jjower absolute, so that he could exercise it 
in case the pressure of the embargo should endanger the internal 
peace of the country. The danger of insurrection at home he 
regarded as a very possible one, while he looked upon the occur- 
rence of the conditions contained in the bill as morally impossi 
sible, under the existing relations of England and France. — Ed.] 

Mr. Chairman, — The amendment proposed to this 
bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has 
for its object to limit the executive discretion in sus- 
pending the embargo to certain specified events, — the 
removal of the French decrees ; the revocation of the 
British orders. It differs from the bill, as it restricts 
the range of the President's power to relieve the people 
from this oppressive measure. In this point of view, it 
appears to me even more objectionable than the bill 
itself. To neither can I yield my sanction. And, as 
the view which I shall offer will be different from any 
which has been taken of this subject, I solicit the indul- 
gence of the committee. 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMUAKGO. 33 

A few daj^s since, when the principle of this bill was 
under discussion, in the form of a resolution, a wide 
field was opened. Almost every subject had the honors 
of debate except that which was the real ol)ject of it. 
Our British and French relations, the merits and de- 
merits of the expired and rejected treaty, as well as 
those of tlie late negotiators, and of the present admin- 
istration, — all were canvassed. I enter not upon these 
topics. They are of a high and most interesting 
nature ; but their connection with the principle of this 
bill is, to say the least, remote. There are considera- 
tions intimately connected with it, enough to interest 
our zeal, and to awaken our anxiety. 

The question referred to our consideration is, shall 
the President be authorized to suspend the embargo on 
the occurrence of certain specified contingencies ? The 
same question is included in the proposed amendment 
and the bill. Both limit the exercise of the power of 
suspension of the embargo to the occurrence of certain 
events. The only difference is, that the discretion 
given by the former is more limited ; that given by the 
latter is more liberal. 

In the course of the former discussion, a constitu- 
tional objection was raised, which, if well founded, puts 
an end to both bill and amendment. It is impossible, 
therefore, not to give it a short examination. It was 
contended that the Constitution had not given this 
House the power to authorize the President at his dis- 
cretion to suspend a law. The gentleman from Mary- 
land (Mr. Key), and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Randolj)h),both of great authority and influence 
in this House, maintained this doctrine with no less 

3 



34 SPEECH ON THE 

zeal than eloquence. I place my opinion, with great 
diffidence, in the scale, opposite to theirs. But as my 
conviction is different, I must give the reasons for it, — 
why I adhere to the old canons ; those which have been 
received as the rule, both of faith and practice, by 
every political sect which has had power, ever since the 
adoj)tion of the Constitution, rather than to these new 
dogmas. 

The Constitution of the United States, as I under- 
stand it, has in every part reference to the nature of 
things and the necessities of society. No portion of it 
was intended as a mere ground for the trial of techni- 
cal skill or verbal ingenuity. The direct, express pow- 
ers, with which it invests Congress, are always to be so 
construed as to enable the people to attain the end for 
which they were given. This is to be gathered from 
the nature of those powers, compared with the known 
exigencies of society and the other provisions of the 
Constitution. If a question arise, as in this case, con- 
cerning the extent of the incidental and implied powers 
vested in us by the Constitution, the instrument itself 
contains the criterion by which it is to be decided. We 
have authority to make " laAvs necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution " powers unquestionably vested. 
Reference must be had to the nature of these powers to 
know what is " necessary and proper " for their wise 
execution. When this necessity and propriety appear, 
the Constitution has eijabled us to make the correspond- 
ent provisions. To the execution of many of the 
powers vested in us by the Constitution, a discretion is 
necessarily and properly incident. And when this 
appears from the nature of any particular power, it is 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. oO 

certainl}'' competent for us to provide by law tluit such 
a discretion shall he exercised. Thus, for instance, the 
power to borrow money must in its exercise be regu- 
lated, from its very nature, by circumstances, not always 
to be anticipated by the legislature at the time of 
passing a law authorizing a loan. Will any man con- 
tend that the legislature is necessitated to direct either 
absolutely that a certain sum shall be borrowed, or to 
limit the event on which the loan is to take place ? 
Cannot it vest a general discretion to borrow or not 'to 
borrow, according to the view which the executive may 
possess of the state of the Treasury, and of the general 
exigencies of the country; particularly in cases where 
the loan is contemplated at some future day, when per- 
haps Congress is not in session, and when the state of 
the Treasury, or of the country, cannot be foreseen ? 
In the case of the two millions appropriated for the 
purchase of the Floridas, such a discretion was invested 
in the executive. He was authorized, " if necessary, to 
borrow the sum, or any part thereof." This authority 
he never exercised, and thus, according to the argument 
of gentlemen on the other side, he has made null a leg- 
islative act. For, so far as it depended upon his discre- 
tion, this not being exercised, it is a nullity. The power 
" to pay the debts of the United States " will present a 
case in which, from the nature of the power, a discretion 
to suspend the operation of a law may be necessary and 
proper to its execution. Congress by one law directs 
the executive to pay off the eight per cent stock. 
Will gentlemen seriously contend that by another it 
may not invest him with a general discretion to stop the 
payment ; that is, to suspend the operation of the former 



36 SPEECH ON THE 

law, if the state of the Treasury, or even more generally 
if the public good should in his opinion require it ? An 
epidemic prevails in one of our commercial cities ; inter- 
course is prohibited with it ; Congres§ is about to ter- 
minate its session, and the distemper still rages. Can it 
be questioned that it is within our constitutional power 
to authorize the President to suspend the operation of 
the law, whenever the public safety will permit? 
whenever, in his opinion, it is expedient ? The meanest 
individual in society, in the most humble transactions of 
business, can avail himself of the discretion of his con- 
fidential agent, in cases where his own cannot be ap- 
plied. Is it possible that the combined wisdom of the 
nation is debarred from investing a similar discretion, 
whenever, from the nature of the particular power, it is 
necessary. and proper to its execution? 

The power of suspending laws, against which we have 
so many warnings in history, was a power exercised con- 
trary to the law, or in denial of its authority, and not 
under the law and by virtue of its express enactment. 
Without entering more minutely into the argument, I 
cannot doubt but that Congress does possess the power 
to authorize the President by law to exercise a discretion- 
ary suspension of a law. A contrary doctrine would 
lead to multiplied inconveniences, and would be wholly 
inconsistent with the proj)er execution of some of the 
powers of the Constitution. It is true that this, like 
every other power, is liable to abuse. But we are not 
to forego a healthy action, because, in its excess, it may 
be injurious. 

The expediency of investing the executive with such 
an authority is always a critical question. In this case, 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 37 

from the magnitude of the subject and the manner in 
which the embargo oppresses all our interests, the 
inquiry into our duty in relation to it is most solemn 
and weighty. It is certain some provision must be 
made touching the embargo previous to our adjourn- 
ment. A whole people is laboring under a most griev- 
ous oppression. All the business of the nation is 
deranged. All its active hopes are frustrated. All its 
industry stagnant. Its numerous products hastening to 
their market, are stopped in their course. A dam is 
thrown across the current, and every hour the strength 
and the tendency towards resistance is accumulating. 
The scene we are now witnessing is altogether unpar- 
alleled in history. The tales of fiction have no parallel 
for it. A new writ is executed upon a whole people. 
Not, indeed, the old monarchial writ, ne exeat regno, 
but a new republican writ, ne exeat repuhlicd. Free- 
men, in the pride of their liberty, have restraints im- 
posed on them which despotism never exercised. They 
are fastened down to the soil l)y the enchantment of 
law ; and their property vanishes in the very process of 
preservation. It is impossible for us to separate and 
leave such a people at such a moment as this, without 
administering some opiate to their distress. Some hope, 
however distant, of alleviation must be proffered ; some 
prospect of relief opened. Otherwise, justly might we 
fear for the result of such an unexamj)led pressure. 
Who can say what counsels despair might suggest, or 
what weapons it might furnish? Some provision, then, 
in relation to the embargo, is unavoidable. The nature 
of it, is the inquir3\ Three courses have been pro- 
posed, — to repeal it ; to stay here and watch it ; to 



38 SPEECH ON THE 

leave with the executive the power to suspend it. 
Concerning repeal I will say nothing. I respect the 
known and immutable determination of the majority of 
this House. However convinced I may be that repeal 
is the only wise and probably the only safe course, I 
cannot persuade myself to urge arguments which have 
been often repeated, and to which, so far from granting 
them any weight, very few seem willing to listen. The 
end to which I aim will not counteract the settled plan 
of policy. I consider the embargo as a measure from 
which we are not to recede, at least not during the 
present session. And my object of research is, in what 
hands, and under what auspices it shall be left, so as 
best to effect its avowed purpose and least to injure 
the communit3^ Repeal, then, is out of the question. 
Shall we stay by and watch ? This has been recom- 
mended. Watch ! what ? " Why, the crisis ! " And 
do gentlemen seriously believe that any crisis which 
events in Europe are likely to produce will be either 
l^revented or ameliorated, by such a body as this re- 
maining, during the whole summer, perched upon this 
bill ? To the tempest which is abroad we can give no 
direction : over it we have no control. It may spend 
its force on the ocean, now desolate by our laws, or it 
may lay waste our shores. We iiave abandoned the 
former, and for the latter, though we have been six 
months in session, we have prepared no adequate 
shield. Besides, in my a^^prehension, it is the first duty 
of this House to expedite the return of its members to 
their constituents. We have been six months in con- 
tinued session. We begin, I fear, to lose our sympa- 
thies for those whom we represent. What can we 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 39 

know, in this wilderness, of the effects of our measures 
i^)on civilized and commercial life? We see nothing, 
Ave feel nothing, but through the intervention of news- 
papers, or of letters. The one obscured by the filth of 
party ; the other often distorted by personal feeling or 
by private interest. It is our immediate, our indispen- 
sable dut}', to mingle with the mass of our brethren 
and by direct intercourse to learn their will ; to realize 
the temperature of their minds ; to ascertain their sen- 
timents concerning our measures. The only course 
that remains is to leave with the executive the power 
to suspend the embargo. But the degree of power with 
which he ought to be vested is made a question. Shall 
he be limited only b}" his sense of the public good, to 
be collected from all the unforeseen circumstances 
which may occur during the recess ; or shall it be exer- 
cised only on the occurrence of certain specified contin- 
gencies? The bill proposes the last mode. It also 
contains other provisions highly exceptionable and dan- 
gerous ; inasmuch as it permits the President to raise 
the embargo, " in part or in whole," and authorizes him 
to exercise an unlimited discretion as to the penalties 
and restrictions he may lay upon the commerce he shall 
allow. My objections to the bill, therefore, are first, 
that it limits the exercise of the executive as to the 
whole embargo, to particular events, Avhich if they do 
not occur, no discretion can be exercised, and let the 
necessity of abandoning the measure be, in other re- 
spects, ever so great, the specified events not occurring, 
the embargo is absolute at least until the ensuing ses- 
sion ; next, that if the events do happen, the whole of 
the commerce he may in his discretion set free is en- 



40 SPEECH ON THE 

tirely at his merc}^ : the door is opened to every species 
of favoritism, personal or locaL This power may not be 
abused, but it ought not to be intrusted. The true, 
the only safe ground on which this measure, during our 
absence, ought to be placed is that which was taken 
in the year 1794. The President ought to have author- 
ity to take off the prohibition whenever, in his judg- 
ment, the public good shall require ; not partially, not 
under arbitrary bonds and restrictions, but totally, if at 
all. I know that this will be rung in the popular ear 
as an unlimited power. Dictatorships, protectorships, 
" shadows dire, will throng into the memory." But let 
gentlemen weigh the real nature of the power I advo- 
cate, and they will find it not so enormous as it first 
appears, and in effect much less than the bill itself pro- 
poses to invest. In the one case he has the simple and 
solitary power of raising or retaining the prohibition, 
according to his view of the public good. In the other 
he is not only the judge of the events specified in the 
bill, but also of the degree of commerce to be per- 
mitted, of the place from which and to which it is to 
be allowed ; he is the judge of its nature, and has 
the power to impose whatever regulation he pleases. 
Surely there can be no question but that the latter 
power is of much more magnitude and more portentous 
than the former. I solicit gentlemen to lay aside their 
prepossessions and to investigate what the substantial 
interest of this country requires ; to consider by what 
dispositions this measure may be made least dangerous 
to the tranquillity and interests of this people, and most 
productive of that peculiar good which is avowed to be 
its object. I address not those who deny our constitu" 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 41 

tional power to invest a discretion to suspend, but I 
address the great majority who are friendly to this bill, 
who, by adopting it, sanction the constitutionality of 
the grant of fresh authority, to whom, therefore, the 
degree of discretion is a fair question of expediency. 
In recommending that a discretion, not limited by 
events, should be vested in the executive, I can have 
no personal wish to augment his power. He is no 
political friend of mine. I deem it essential, both for 
the tranquillity of the people and for the success of the 
measure, that such a power should be committed to 
him. Neither personal nor party feelings shall prevent 
me from advocating a measure, in my estimation, salu- 
tar}?- to the most important interests of this country. 
It is true that I am among the earliest and the most 
uniform opponents of the embargo. I have seen noth- 
ing to varj'" my original belief, that its policy was 
equally cruel to individuals and mischievous to society. 
As a weapon to control foreign powers, it seemed to me 
dubious in its theory, uncertain in its operation ; of all 
possible machinery the most difficult to set up and the 
most expensive to maintain. As a means to preserve 
our resources, nothing could, to my mind, be more ill 
adapted. The best guarantees of the interest society 
has in the wealth of the members which compose it, are 
the industry, intelligence, and enterprise of the indi- 
vidual proprietors, strengthened as they always are by 
knowledge of business, and quickened by that which 
gives the keenest edge to human ingenuity, — self-inter- 
est. When all the property of a multitude is at hazard, 
the simplest and surest Avay of securing the greatest 
portion is not to limit individual exertion, but to stiin- 



42 SPEECH ON THE 

iilate it ; not to conceal the nature of the exposure, 
but, hy giving a full knowledge of the state of things, 
to leave the Avit of every proprietor free to work out 
the salvation of his property, according to the opportu- 
nities he may discern. Notwithstanding the decrees of 
the belligerents, there appeared to me a field wide 
enough to occupy and reward mercantile enterprise. 
If we left commerce at liberty we might, according to 
the fable, lose some of her golden eggs ; but if we 
crushed commerce, the parent which produced them, 
with her our future hopes perished. Without entering 
into the particular details whence these conclusions 
resulted, it is enough that they were such as satisfied 
my mind as to the duty of opposition to the system in 
its incipient state, and in all the restrictions' which have 
grown out of it. But the system is adopted. May 
it be successful ! It is not to diminish but to increase 
the chance of that success that I urge that a discretion, 
unlimited by events, should be vested in the executive. 
I shall rejoice if this great miracle be worked. I shall 
congratulate my country if the experiment shall prove 
that the old world can be controlled by fear of being 
excluded from the commerce of the new. Happy shall 
I be if, on the other side of this dark valley of the 
shadow of death through which our commercial hopes 
• are passing, shall be found regions of future safety and 
felicity. 

Among all the propositions offered to this House, 
no man has suggested that we ought to rise and leave 
this embargo, until our return, pressing upon the people, 
without some power of suspension vested in the execu- 
tive. Why this uniformity of ophiion ? The reason is 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBAKGO. 43 

obvious. If the people were left six months without 
hope, no man could anticipate the consecjuencos. All 
agree that such an experiment would be unwise and 
dangerous. Now, precisely the same reasons which 
induce the majority not to go away without making 
some i^rovision for its removal, on which to feed popular 
expectation, is conclusive in my mind that the discretion 
proposed to be invested should not be limited by con- 
tingencies. The embargo power, which now holds in 
its palsying gripe all the hopes of this nation, is distin- 
guished by two characteristics of material import, in 
deciding what control shall be left over it during our 
recess. I allude to its greatness and its novelty. 

As to its greatness, nothing is like it. Every class of 
men feels it. Every interest in the nation is affected 
by it. The merchant, the farmer, the planter, the 
mechanic, the laboring poor, — all are sinking under its 
weight. But there is this that is peculiar to it, that 
there is no equality in its nature. It is not like taxa- 
tion, which raises revenue according to the average of 
Avealth ; burdening the rich and letting the poor go free. 
But it presses upon the particular classes of society, in 
an inverse ratio to the ca})acity of each to bear it. From 
those who have much, it takes indeed something. But 
from those who have little, it takes all. For what hope 
is left to the industrious poor when enterprise, activit}^' 
and capital are proscribed their legitimate exercise? 
This power resembles not the mild influences of an 
intelligent mind balancing the interests and condition of 
men, and so conducting a complicated machine as to 
make inevitable pressure bear ujjon its strongest parts ; 
but it is like one of the blind visitations of nature, — a 



44 SPEECH OjS^ the 

tornado or a whirlwind. It sweeps away the weak; it 
only shakes the strong. The humble plant, uprooted, 
is overwhelmed by the tempest. The oak escapes with 
the loss' of nothing except its annual honors. It is 
true the sheriff does not enter any man's house to collect 
a tax from his property. But want knocks at his door, 
and povert}^ thrusts its face in at the window. And what 
relief can the rich extend ? They sit upon their heaps 
and feel them mouldering into ruins under them. The 
regulations of society forbid what was once property to 
be so any longer. For property depends on circulation, 
on exchange ; on ideal value. The power of property 
is all relative. It depends not merely upon opinion 
here, but upon opinion in other countries. If it be cut 
off from its destined market, much of it is worth noth- 
ing, and all of it is worth infinitely less than when cir- 
culation is unobstructed. 

This embargo power is, therefore, of all powers the 
most enormous, in the manner in which it affects the 
hopes and interests of a nation. But its magnitude is 
not more remarkable than its novelty. An experiment, 
such as is now making, was never before — I will not 
say tried- — it never before entered into the human 
imagination. There is nothing like it in the narrations 
of history or in the tales of fiction. All the habits of a 
mighty nation are at once counteracted. All their 
property depreciated. All their external connections 
violated. Five millions of people are encaged. They 
cannot go beyond the limits of that once free country' ; 
now they are not even permitted to thrust their own 
property through the grates. I am not now questioning- 
its policy, its wisdom, or its practicability : I am merely 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 45 

stating the fact. And I ask if such a power as this, 
thus great, thus novel, thus interfering with all the 
great passions and interests of a whole people, ought to 
be left for six months in operation, without any power 
of control, except upon the occurrence of certain speci- 
fied and arbitrary contingencies? Who can foretell 
when the spirit of endurance will cease ? Who, when 
the strength of nature shall outgrow the strength of 
your bonds ? Or if they do, who can give a pledge that 
the patience of the people will not first be exhausted. 
I make a supposition, Mr. Chairman. You are a great 
physician ; you take a hearty, hale man, in the very 
pride of health, his young blood all active in his veins, 
and you outstretch him on a bed ; you stop up all his 
natural orifices, you hermetically seal down his pores, so 
that nothing shall escape outwards, and that all his 
functions and all his humors shall be turned inward 
upon his S3'Stem. While your patient is laboring in the 
very crisis of this course of treatment, you, his physi- 
cian, take a journey into a far country, and you say to 
his attendant, — "I have a great experiment here in 
process, and a new one. It is all for the good of the 
young man, so do not fail to adhere to it. These are 
my directions, and the power with which I invest you. 
No attention is to be paid to any internal symptom 
which may occur. Let the patient be convulsed as 
much as he will, you are to remove none of my band- 
ages. But, in case something external should happen, — 
if the sky should fall, and larks should begin to abound, 
if three birds of Paradise should fly into the window, — 
the great purpose of all these sufferings is answered. 
Then, and then only, have you my authority to admin- 
ister relief." 



46 SPEECH ON THE 

The conduct of such a physician, in such a case, 
would not be more extraordinary than that of this House 
in the present, should it adjourn and limit the discretion 
of the executive to certain specified events arbitrarily 
anticipated ; leaving him destitute of the power to 
grant relief should internal symptoms indicate that 
nothing else would prevent convulsions. If the events 
you specify do not happen, then the embargo is abso- 
lutely fixed until our return. Is there one among us 
that has such an enlarged view of the nature and neces- 
sities of this people as to warrant that such a system 
can continue six months longer? It is a proposition 
which no known facts substantiate, and which the strength 
and the universality of the passions such a pressure 
will set at work in the community render, to say the 
least, of very dubious issue. My argument in this part 
has this prudential truth for its basis : if a great power 
is put in motion, affecting great interests, the power 
which is left to manage it should be adequate to its 
control. If the power be not only great in its nature, 
but novel in its mode of operation, the superintending 
power should be permitted to exercise a wise discretion ; 
for if you limit him by contingencies, the experiment 
may fail, or its results be unexpected. In either case, 
nothing but shame or ruin would be our portion. 

But I ask the House to view this subject in relation to 
the success of this measure, which the majority have 
justly so much at heart. Which position of invested 
power is the most auspicious to a happy issue ? 

As soon as this House has risen, what think you will 
be the first question every man in this nation will put to 
his neighbor ? Will it not be, — " What has Congress 



SUvSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 47 

done with the embargo ? " Sui^pose the reply should 
be, — " They have made no provision. This corroding 
cancer is to be left to prey on our vitals six months 
longer." Is there a man who doubts but that such a 
reply would sink the heart of every owner of property, 
and of every laborer in the community? No man can 
hesitate. The magnitude of the evil, the certain pros- 
pect of so terrible a calamit}^ thus long protracted, 
would itself tend to counteract the continuance of the 
measure by the discontent and despair it could not fail 
to produce in the great body of the people. But sup- 
pose in reply to such a question, it should be said — 
" the removal of the embargo depends upon events. 
France must retrace her steps. England must apologize 
and atone for her insolence. Two of the proudest and 
most powerful nations on the globe must truckle for our 
favor, or we shall persist in maintaining our dignified 
retirement." What, then, would be the consequence ? 
would not every reflecting man in the nation set him- 
self at work to calculate the probalHlity of the occur- 
rence of these events ? If they were likely to happen, 
the distress and discontent would be scarcely less than 
in the case of absolute certainty for six months' perpet- 
uation of it. For if the events do not happen, the 
embargo is absolute. Such a state of popular mind all 
agree is little favorable either to perseverance in the 
measure, or to its ultimate success. But suppose that 
the people should find a discretionary power was invested 
in the executive, to act as in his judgment, according to 
circumstances, the public good should require. Would 
not such a state of things have a direct tendency to 
allay fear, to tranquillize discontent, and encourage 



48 SPEECH ON THE 

endurance of suffering? Should experience prove that 
it is absolutely insupportable, there is a constitutional 
way of relief. The way of escape is not wholly closed. 
The knoAvledge of this fact would be alone a support to 
the people. They would endure it longer. They would 
endure it better. They would be secure of a more 
cordial co-operation in the measure as the people would 
see they were not wholly hopeless, in case the experi- 
ment was too oppressive. Surely, nothing can be more 
favorable to its success than producing such a state of 
public sentiment. 

We are but a young nation. The United States are 
scarcely yet hardened into the bone of manhood. The 
whole period of our national existence has been nothing 
else than a continued series of prosperity. The miseries 
of the Revolutionary war were but as the pangs of 
parturition. The experience of that period was of 
a nature not to be very useful after our nation had 
acquired an individual form and a manly constitu- 
tional stamina. It is to be feared we have grown 
giddy with good fortune ; attributing the greatness 
of our prosperity to our own wisdom, rather than 
to a course of events and a guidance over which 
we had no influence. It is to be feared that we are 
now entering that school of adversity, the first bles- 
sing of which is to chastise an overweening conceit 
of ourselves. A nation mistakes its relative conse- 
quence, when it thinks its countenance, or its inter- 
course, or its existence, all important to the rest of the 
world. There is scarcely any people, and none of any 
weight in the society of nations, which does not possess 
within its own sphere all that is essential to its exist- 



SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 49 

ence. An individual who should retire from conversa- 
tion with the workl for the purpose of taking vengeance 
on it for some real or imaginary wrong would soon find 
himself grievously mistaken : notwithstanding the delu- 
sions of self-flattery, he would certainly be taught that 
the world was moving along just as well, after his digni- 
fied retirement, as it did while he intermeddled with its 
concerns. The case of a nation wdiich should make a 
similar trial of its importance to other nations would 
not be very different from that of such an individual. 
The intercourse of human life has its basis in a natural 
reciprocity, which always exists, although the vanity of 
nations, as well as of individuals, wall often suggest to 
inflated fancies that they give more than they gain in 
the interchange of friendship, of civilities, or of busi- 
ness. I conjure gentlemen not to commit the nation as 
to the purpose of this embargo measure, but, by leaving 
a wise discretion during our absence with the executive, 
neither to admit nor deny by the terms of our law that 
its object is to coerce foreign nations. Such a state of 
things is safest for our own honor and the wisest to 
secure success for this system of policy. 



SPEECH 

ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION REPORTED BY 
THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

Nov. 28, 1808. 



SPEECH 

ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION REPORTED BY THE 
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

Nov. 28, 1808. ■ 



[The necessity of some more important protection of the sea- 
board cities than that provided by Mr. Jefferson's government 
grew more and more apparent, as the relations of tlie United 
States with France and England became more and more compli- 
cated. To resent the injury done to American commerce by 
the new rulings of Lord Stowell in the Court of Admiralty, and 
the insult to the American flag in the right claimed and exer- 
cised by England of searching our merchant-ships for English 
sailors and impressing them wherever found, the law known as 
the Non-importation Act had been passed shortly before the 
speech of April 14th, 1806, was delivered. By this act the 
importation from Great Britain, or any of her dependencies, of 
all the articles of her commerce with the United States was for- 
bidden. As this measure did not have the desired effect of 
bringing England to her senses, Mr. Jefferson prepared to push 
still further his attempt to conquer her by a war of commercial 
restrictions. The governing party had most exaggerated notions 
of the dependence of England upon the commerce of America, 
and believed that she would submit to any terms rather than 
lose it. In retaliation for the Berlin decree of Bonaparte, 
declaring the British Islands in a state of blockade and forbid- 
ding all neutral intercourse with them, the British government 
in November, 1807, issued the famous Orders in Council, for- 
bidding any commercial intercourse with France or her allies, 



54 SPEECH ON rOEEIGN RELATIONS. 

excepting through some port of Great Britain or Ireland. All 
ships engaged in this trade were to touch at one of the ports of 
the United Kingdom and pay certain fees and take out a license 
for permission to jn'oceed on their voyage. To these orders 
Bonaparte sooa replied by the Milan decree, by which he 
declared every vessel which complied with their conditions to be 
" denationalized," and lawful prize. As the Americans were 
the only neutrals, inasmuch as all the continent was either in 
alliance with or in subjection to Bonaparte, their commerce was 
very effectually destroyed. But as if the agreement in policy of 
the two great belligerents of Europe were not sufficient for its 
utter extinction, Mr. Jefferson devised his celebrated embargo to 
hinder adventurous merchants from taking the chance of capture 
at their own risk. On the 18th of December, 1807, he sent the 
shortest presidential message on record, of two sentences only, 
to both Houses, recommending an embargo, or prohibition of all 
vessels from leaving the ports of the United States. Tliis mes- 
sage was received and discussed in secret session, and was 
despatched in four hours by the Senate, and had its preliminary 
reading despatched in the House with even greater speed, 
though the discussion in the committee of the whole continued 
for three days and nearly three nights, — the more recent 
application of the j^J'evious question as a daily instrument for 
the suppression of debate not having then been imagined. The 
act finally passed by a vote of eighty-two yeas to forty-four 
nays. The promulgation of this law carried dismay and ruin 
to the whole seaboard. Massachusetts, which then included 
Maine, felt the blow most severely, which struck not merely at 
her wealth, but at her daily bread. And the victims of this cruel 
measure were told that its object was only their own protection 
and advantage! And although both belligerents were ostensibly 
included in the recital of grievances which led to the measure, 
yet it was scarcely denied that it was aimed chiefly at Eng- 
land, the trade with Erance being comparatively of no impor- 
tance. And Bonaparte himself took this view of the matter, 
regarding the American embargo as a necessary complement of 
his continental system, for the destruction of England through 



SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 55 

that of her commerce. Before the adjournmcMit of Congress, in 
April, 1808, an act was passed authorizing the President, in 
case of peace between the belligerents, or such other change 
in their measures as to neutral commerce as should in his judg- 
ment justify such action, to suspend the operation of the em- 
bargo. Mr. Quincy moved to invest the President with full 
powers, unrestricted by any conditions, and made the following 
speech in sui)port of his motion. It came to nothing, of course. 
Congress soon after adjourned. 

When it reassembled, by adjournment, at the beginning of 
November, 1808, the embargo and the state of our relations 
with foreign powers formed the staple of debate, as it had of men's 
thoughts and talk in the interval. The committee to which so 
much of the President's message as treated of foreign relations 
having reported the following resolution : " Resolved : that the 
United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, 
and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and 
France," upon this hint Mr. Quincy spoke as follows, ou the 
28th of November. — Ed.] 

Mr. Chairman, — I am not, in general, a friend to 
abstract legislation. Ostentations declaration of gen- 
eral principles is so often the resort of weakness and of 
ignorance ; it is so frequently the subterfuge of men 
who are willing to amuse or who mean to delude the 
people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a 
course my sanction. 

If, however, a formal annunciation of a determination 
to perform one of the most common and undeniable of 
national duties be deemed by a majority of this House 
essential to their character, or to the attainment of pub- 
lic confidence, I am willing to admit that the one now 
offered, is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely 
to propose. 

In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the 



56 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

report of the committee, l)y Avhicli it is accompanied 
and introduced. The course advocated in that report 
is, in my opinion, loathsome ; the spirit it breathes dis- 
graceful ; the temper it is likely to inspire, neither 
calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to 
preserve those which remain to us. It is an established 
maxim that, in adopting a resolution offered by a com- 
mittee in this House, no member is pledged to support 
the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they 
have seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a 
common right, when I subscribe to the resolution, not 
on the princij^les of the committee, but on those which 
obviously result from its terms, and are the plain mean- 
ing of its expressions. 

I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehen- 
sion, it offers a solemn pledge to this nation — a pledge 
not to be mistaken, and not to be evaded — that the 
present system of public measures shall be totally aban- 
doned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of 
deserting our rights, under a pretence of maintaining 
them. Adopt it, and we no longer yield to the beck of 
haughty belligerents the rights of navigating the ocean, 
that cho-ice inheritance bequeathed to us by our fathers. 
Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and 
abject submission by which this country has for these 
eleven months been disgraced and brought to the brink 
of ruin. 

That the natural import and necessary implication of 
the terms of this resolution are such as I have sug- 
gested will be apparent from a very transient consider- 
ation. What do its terms necessarily include ? They 
contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 57 

that the edicts of Great Britain and France are contrary 
to our rights, honor, and independence. The pledge is, 
that we will not snbmit to them. 

Concerning the assertion contained in this resolu- 
tion, I wonld say nothing, were it not that I fear that 
those who have so long been in the habit of looking at 
the orders and decrees of foreign powers as the meas- 
ure of the rights of our own citizens, and have been 
accustomed, in direct subserviency to them, of prohibit- 
ing commerce altogether, might apprehend that there 
was some lurking danger in such an assertion. They 
may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. 
Neither Great Britain or France ever pretended that 
those edicts were consistent with American rights. On 
the contrar}^, both these nations ground those edicts on 
the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the 
injustice done, at the very instant of executing the act 
of oppression. No gentleman need have any difficulty 
in screwing his courage up to this assertion. Neither 
of the bellio-erents will contradict it. Mr. Turreau and 
Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declara- 
tion to-morrow. 

With respect to the pledge contained in this resolu- 
tion, understood according to its true import, it is a 
glorious one. It opens new prospects. It promises a 
change in the disposition of this House. It is a solemn 
assurance to the nation, that it will no longer submit to 
these edicts. 

It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submis- 
sion is, and what the pledge not to submit implies. 

One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of 
another, when he does that thing which such order, 



58 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

decree, or edict commands ; or when he omits to do that 
thing which such order, decree, or edict prohibits. 
This, then, is submission. It is to do as we are bidden. 
It is to take the will of another as the measure of our 
rights. It is to yield to his power ; to go Avhere he 
directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us. 

If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit 
implies the reverse of all this. It is a solemn declara- 
tion, that we will not do that thing which such order, 
decree, or edict commands, or that we will do what 
it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is honor. 
This is independence. It consists in taking the nature 
of things, and not the will of another, as the measure 
of our rights. What God and nature offer us, we will 
enjoy in despite of the commands, regardless of the 
menaces of iniquitous power. 

Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles 
to tlie edicts of Great Britain and France, and the con- 
sequent abandonment of the ocean by the American 
government. The decrees of France pi'ohibit us from 
trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great 
Britain prohibit us from trading with France. And 
what do we? Why — in direct subserviency to the 
edicts of each — we prohibit our citizens from trading 
with either. We do more, as if unqualified submission 
was not humiliating enough, we descend to an act of 
supererogation in servility : we abandon trade alto- 
gether ; we not only refrain from that particular trade, 
which their respective edicts proscribe, but lest the 
ingenuity of our merchants should enable them to evade 
their operation, to make submission doubly sure, the 
American government virtually re-enact the edicts of 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 50 

the belligerents, and abandon all the trade which, not- 
withstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remains 
to us. The same conclusion will result if we consider 
our embargo in relation to the objects of this belligerent 
policy. France by her edicts would compress Great 
Britain, by destroying her commerce and cutting off her 
supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of 
Bonaparte, is made subservient to this policy. The 
embargo law of the United States, in its operation, is an 
union Avith this continental coalition against British 
commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its 
success. Can any thing be more in direct subserviency 
to the views of the French emperor? If we consider 
the orders of Great Britain, the result will be the same. 
I proceed at present on the supposition of a perfect 
impartiality in our administration towards both belliger- 
ents, so far as relates to the embargo law. Great Britain 
had two objects in issuing her orders. First, to excite 
discontent in the people of the continent, by depriving 
them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to 
secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived 
neutrals. Our embargo co-operates with the British 
views in both respects. By our dereliction of the 
ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the 
advantages of commerce than it would be possible for 
the British navy to effect, and, by removing our compe- 
tition, all the commerce of the continent which can be 
forced, is wholly left to be reaped by Great Britain. 
'The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity 
wdth these ideas. Napoleon tells the American minister, 
virtually, that we are very good Americans ; that 
although he will not allow- the property he has in his 



60 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 

hands to escape him, nor desist from' burning and cap- 
turing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus 
far, satisfied with our co-operation. And what is the 
language of George the Third, when our minister pre- 
sents to his consideration the embargo laws. Is it Le 
Roi savisera? The king will reflect upon them. No, 
it is the pure language of royal approbation. Le Roi 
le veut. The kiug wills it. Were you colonies, he 
could expect no more. His subjects as inevitably get 
that commerce which you abandon, as the water will 
certainly run into the only channel which remains after 
all the others are obstructed. In whatever point of 
view you consider these embargo laws in relation to 
those edicts and decrees, we shall find them co-operating 
with each belligerent in its policy. In this way, I grant, 
our conduct may be impartial ; but what has become of 
our American rights to navigate the ocean ? They are 
abandoned in strict conformity to the decrees of both 
belligerents. This resolution declares that we will no 
longer submit to such degrading humiliation. Little as 
I relish, I will take it as the harbinger of a new day, 
the pledge of a new system of measures. 

Perhaps here, in strictness, I ought to close my obser- 
vations. But the report of the committee, contrary to 
what I deem the principle of the resolution, unquestion- 
ably recommends the continuance of the embargo laws. 
And such is the state of the nation, and in particular 
that portion of it which in part I represent, under their 
oppression, that I cannot refrain from submitting some 
considerations on that subject. 

When I enter on the subject of the embargo, I am 
struck with wonder at the very threshold. I know ]iot 



SPEECH ON" FOEEIGIT RELATIONS. 61 

with what words to express my astonishment. At the 
time I departed from Massachusetts, if there Avas an 
impression which I thought universal, it was that, at 
the commencement of this session, an end would Ije put 
to this measure. The opinion was not so much that it 
would be terminated as that it was then at an end. 
Sir, the prevailing sentiment, according to my apprehen- 
sion, was stronger than this, — even that the pressure 
Avas so great that it could not possibly be endured ; that 
it would soon be absolutely insupportable. And this 
opinion, as I then had reason to believe, was not con- 
fined to anyone class or description or party, — that 
even those who were friends of the existing adminis- 
tration, and unwilling to abandon it, were yet satisfied 
that a sufficient trial had been given to this measure. 
With these impressions, I arrive in this city. I hear the 
incantations of the great enchanter. I feel his spell. I 
see the legislative machineiy begin to move. The scene 
opens. And I am commanded to forget all my recollec- 
tions, to disl)elieve the evidence of m}^ senses, to contra- 
dict what I have seen and heard and felt. I hear that 
all this discontent was mere party clamor, electioneering 
artifice ; that the people of New England are able and 
willing to endure this embargo for an indefinite, unlim- 
ited period ; some say for six months ; some a year, 
some two years. The gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Macon) told us that he preferred three years of 
embargo to a war. And the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Clopton) said expressly, that he hoped we should 
never allow our vessels to go upon the ocean again, 
until the orders and decrees of the belligerents were 
rescinded. In plain English, until France and Great 



62 SPEECH ON" FOREIGN EELATIONS. 

Britain should, in their great condescension permit. 
Good Heavens ! Mr. Chairman, are men mad ? Is this 
House touched with that insanit}^ which is the never- 
faihng precursor of the intention of Heaven to destroy ! 
The people of New England, after eleven months depri- 
vation of the ocean, to be commanded still longer to 
abandon it, for an undefined period ; to liold their un- 
alienable rights, at the tenure of the Avill of Britain or 
of Bonaparte ! A people, commercial in all aspects, in 
all their relations, in all their hopes, i!i__xill their recol- 
lections of the past, in all their prospects of the future : 
a people whose first love was the ocean, the choice of 
their childhood, the approbation of their manly years, 
the most precious inheritance of their fathers, in the 
midst of their success, in the moment of the most ex- 
quisite perception of commercial prosperity, to be com- 
manded to abandon it, not for a time limited, but for a 
time unlimited ; not until they can be prepared to 
defend themselves there (for that is not pretended), 
but until their rivals recede from it ; not until their 
necessities reqiiire, but until foreign nations permit ! I 
am lost in astonishment, Mr. Chairman. I have not 
words to express the matchless absurdity of this at- 
tempt. I have no tongue to express the swift and 
headlong destruction which a blind perseverance in 
such a system must bring upon this nation. 

But men from New England, representatives on this 
floor, equally with myself the constitutional guardians 
of her interests, differ from me in these opinions. My 
honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) took occasion in 
secret session, to deny that there did exist all that dis- 
content and distress, which I had attempted in an 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. G8 

humble Avay to describe. He told us he had travelled 
in j\Iassachusetts, that the people were not thus dissat- 
isfied, that the embargo had not produced any such 
tragical effects. Really, sir, my honorable colleague 
has travelled all the way from Stockbridge to Hudson ; 
from Berkshire to Boston ; from inn to inn ; from county 
court to county court ; and doubtless he collected all 
that important information which an acute intelligence 
never fails to retain on such occasions. He found tea, 
sugar, salt, West India rum, and molasses dearer ; beef, 
pork, butter, and cheese cheaper. Reflection enabled 
him to arrive at this difficult result, that in this way 
the evil and the good of the embargo equalize one 
another. But has my honorable colleague travelled on 
the seaboard ? Has he witnessed the state of our 
cities ? Has he seen our ships rotting at our wharves, 
our wharves deserted, our stores tenantless, our streets 
bereft of active business ; industry forsaking her beloved 
haunts, and hope fled away from places where she had 
from earliest time been accustomed to make and to ful- 
fil her most precious promises ? Has he conversed with 
the merchant, and heard the tale of his embarrassments, 
— his capital arrested in his hands, forbidden by your 
laws to resort to a market, with property four times 
sufficient to discharge all his engagements, obliged to 
hang on the precarious mercy of moneyed institutions 
for that indulgence which preserves him from stopping 
payment, the first step towards bankruptcy ? Has he 
conversed with our mechanics? Has he seen them 
either destitute of employment or obliged to seek it in 
labors odious to them, because they Avere not educated 
to them ? That mechanic, who the day before this em- 



64 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN EELATIONS. 

bargo passed, the very da}^ that you took this bit, and 
rolled it like a sweet morsel under your tongue, had 
more business than he had hands or time or thought 
to employ in it, now soliciting at reduced prices 
that emj)loyment which the rich, owing to the uncer- 
tainty in which jonr laws have involved their capital, 
cannot afford. I could heighten this picture. I could' 
show you laboring poor in the almshouse, and will- 
ing industry, dependent upon charity. But I con- 
fine myself to particulars which have fallen under my 
own observation, and of which ten thousand suffering 
mdividuals on the seaboard of New England are living 
witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, — Other gentlemen must take their 
responsibilities : I shall take mine. This embargo must 
be repealed. You cannot enforce it for any important 
period of time longer. When I speak of your inability 
to enforce this law, let no gentleman misunderstand me. 
I mean not to intimate insurrections or open defiances 
of them. Although it is impossible to foresee in what 
acts that "oppression" will finally terminate which, we 
are told, " makes wise men mad." I speak of an inabil- 
ity resulting from very different causes. 

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Macon), 
exclaimed the other day in a strain of patriotic ardor, 
"What! shall not our laws be executed? Shall their 
authority be defied ? I am for enforcing them at every 
hazard." I honor that gentleman's zeal ; and I mean 
no deviation from that true respect I entertain for him, 
when I tell him that, in this instance, " his zeal is not 
according to knowledge." 

I ask this House, is there no control to its authority, 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 65 

is there no limit to the power of this national legisla- 
ture ? I hope I shall offend no man, when I intimate 
that two limits exist, — nature and the Constitution. 
Should this House undertake to declare that this atmos- 
phere should no longer surround us, that water should 
cease to flow, that gravity should not hereafter operate, 
that the needle should not vibrate to the pole, I do sup- 
pose, Mr. Chairman, — sir, I mean no disrespect to the 
authority of this House ; I know the high notions some 
gentlemen entertain on this subject, — I do suppose, — 
sir, I hope I shall not offend, — I think I may venture 
to affirm, that such a law to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing the air would continue to circulate, the Mississippi, 
the Hudson, and the Potomac would hurl their floods 
to the ocean, heavy bodies continue to descend, and the 
mysterious magnet hold on its course to its celestial 
cynosure. 

Just as utterly absurd and contrary to nature is it, to 
attempt to prohibit the people of New England, for any 
considerable length of time, from the ocean. Commerce 
is not only associated with all the feelings, the habits, 
the interests, and relations, of that people, but the 
nature of our soil and of our coasts, the state of our 
population and its mode of distribution over our terri- 
tory, renders it indispensable. We have five hundred 
miles of sea-coast ; all furnished with harbors, bays, 
creeks, rivers, inlets, basins, with every variety of invi- 
tation to the sea, with every species of facility to violate 
such laws as these : our people are not scattered over 
an immense surface, at a solemn distance from each 
other, in lordly retirement, in the midst of extended 
plantations and intervening wastes. They are collected 



Q6 SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIOKS. 

on the margin of the ocean, b}^ the sides of rivers, at 
the heads of bays, looking into the water or on the sur- 
face of it for the incitement and the reward of their 
industry. Among a people thus situated, thus edu- 
cated, thus numerous, laws prohibiting them from the 
exercise of their natural rights will have a binding 
effect not one moment longer than the public senti- 
ment su]3ports them. Gentlemen talk of twelve reve- 
nue cutters additional to enforce the embargo laws. 
Multiply the number by twelve, multiply it by an hun- 
dred, join all your ships of war, all jour gunboats, and 
all your militia, in despite of them all, such laws as 
these are of no avail when they become odious to public 
sentiment. Continue these laws any considerable time 
longer, and it is very doubtful if you will have officers 
to execute, juries to convict, or purchasers to bid for 
your confiscations. Cases have begun to occur. Ask 
your revenue officers, and they will tell you that already 
at public sales in your cities, under these laws, the 
owner has bought his property at less than four per cent 
upon the real value. Public o^jinion begins to look with 
such a jealous and hateful eye upon these laws, that 
even self-interest will not co-operate to enforce their 
penalties. 

But where is our love of order ? Where our respect 
for the laws ? Let legislators beware lest, by the very 
nature of their laws, they weaken that sentiment of 
respect for them, so important to be inspired, and so 
difficult to be reinstated when it has once been driven 
from the mind. Regulate not the multitude to their 
ruin. Disgust not men of virtue by the tendency of 
3^our laws, lest when they cannot yield them the sane- 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 67 

tion of their approbation, tlie enterprising and the 
necessitous find a principal check upon their fears of 
violating them removed. It is not enough for men in 
place to exclaim, " the worthless part of society." 
Words cannot alter the nature of things. You cannot 
identify the violator of such laws as these, in our j^art 
of the country, for any great length of time, with the 
common smuggler, nor bring the former down to the 
level of the latter. The reason is obvious. You bring 
the duties the citizen owes to society into competition, 
not only with the strongest interests, but, which is more, 
with the most sacred private obligations. When you 
present to the choice of a citizen, bankruptcy, a total 
loss of the accumulated wealth of his whole life, or a 
violation of a positive law, restrictive of the exercise of 
the most common rights, it presents to him a most criti- 
cal alternative. I will not say how sublime casuists 
may decide. But it is easy to foretell that nature will 
plead too strong in the bosom to make obedience long 
possible. I state no imaginary case. Thousands in 
New England see in the continuance of this embargo and 
in obedience to it irremediable ruin to themselves and 
families. But where is our patriotism? Sir, you call 
upon patriotism for sacrifices to which it is unequal ; 
and require its operation in a way in which that passion 
cannot long subsist. Patriotism is a great comfort to 
men in the interior, to the farmer and the planter, who 
are denied a market by jouv laws, whose local situation 
is such that they can neither sell their produce, nor 
scarcely give it away, and who are made to believe that 
their privations will ultimately redound to the benefit of 
tlie country. But on the seaboard, where men feel not 



68 SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIONS. 

only their annual profit, but their whole capital perish- 
ing, where they know the utter inefficacy of your laws 
to coerce foreign nations, and their utter futility as a 
means of saving our own property ; to such laws in such 
a situation, patriotism is, to say the least, a very inactive 
assistant. You cannot lay a man upon the rack and 
crack his muscles, bj' a slow torment, and call patriotism 
to soothe the sufferer. 

But there is another obstacle to a long and effectual 
continuance of this law, — the doubt which hangs over 
its constitutionality. I know I shall be told that the 
sanction of the judiciary has been added to this act of 
the legislature. Sir, I honor that tribunal. I revere the 
individual whose opinion declared in this instance the 
constitutionality of the law. But it is one thing to ven- 
erate our courts of justice ; it is one thing to deem this 
law obligatory upon the citizen, while it has all these 
sanctions ; it is another, on this floor, in the high court 
of the people's privileges, to advocate its repeal on the 
ground that it is an invasion of their rights. The em- 
bargo laws have unquestionable sanction. They are 
laws of this land. Yet, who shall deny to a representa- 
tive of this people the right, in their own favorite tribu- 
nal, of bringing your laws to the test of the principles 
of the Constitution ? 

Is there any principle more wise, or more generally 
received among statesmen, than that a law, in propor- 
tion to its pressure uj)on the people, should have its 
basis in unquestionable authority, as well as necessity ? 
A legislature may sport with the rights of an individual. 
It may violate the constitution to the ruin of whole 
classes of men. But once let it begin, by its laws, to 



SPEECH ON FOREIGlSr RELATIONS. 69 

crush the hopes of the great mass of the citizens ; let it 
bring every eye in the land to the scrutiny of its laws 
and its authority, to be permanent those laws must pos- 
sess no flaw in their foundation. 

I ask in what page of the Constitution you find the 
power of laying an embargo? Directly given it is no- 
where. You have it, then, by construction or by prece- 
dent. B}"- construction of the power to regulate. I lay 
out of the question the common-place argument, that 
regulation cannot mean annihilation ; and that what is 
annihilated cannot be regulated. I ask this question. 
Can a power be ever obtained by construction which 
had never been exercised at the time of the authority 
given ; the like of which had not only never been seen, 
but the idea of which had never entered into human 
imagination, I will not say in this country, but in the 
world ? Yet such is this power which by construction 
you assume to exercise. Never before did society wit- 
ness a total prohibition of all intercourse like this in 
a commercial nation. Did the peoj^le of the United 
States invest this House with a power of which, at the 
time of investment, that people had not and could not 
have had any idea ? for even in works of fiction it had 
never existed. But we have precedent. Precedent is 
directly against you. For the only precedent, that in 
1794, was in conformity to the embargo power, as it 
had been exercised in other countries. It was limited. 
Its duration was known. The power passed from the 
representatives of this House only for sixty days. In 
that day the legislature would not trust even Washing- 
ton, amid all his well-earned influence, with any other 
than a limited j)Ower. But away, sir, with such deduc- 



70 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

tions as these : I appeal to the history of the times when 
this national compact was formed. This Constitution 
grew out of our necessities, and it was in every stage of 
its formation obstructed by the jealousies and diverse 
interests of the different States. The gentlemen of the 
South had certain species of property with the control 
of which they would not trust us in the North. And 
wisely ; for we neither appreciate it as they do, nor could 
regulate it safely for them. In the east our sentiment 
concerning their interest in commerce, and their power 
to understand its true interests, was in a great degree 
similar. The writings of that period exhibit this jeal- 
ousy, and the fears excited by it formed in that portion 
of the United States a formidable objection to its adop- 
tion. In this state of things, would the people of New 
England consent to convey to a legislature, constituted 
as this in time must be, a power, not only to regulate 
commerce, but to annihilate it, for a time unlimited, or 
altogether? Suppose, in 1788, in the Convention of 
Massachusetts, while debating upon the adoption of this 
Constitution, some hoary sage had arisen, and with an 
eye looking deep into futurity, with a prophet's ken, 
had thus addressed the assembly. " Fellow-citizens 
of Massachusetts, to what ruin are you hastening ? 
Twenty years shall not elapse before, under a secret 
and dubious construction of the instrument now pro- 
posed for your adoption, your commerce shall be anni- 
hilated ; the wbole of your vast trade prohibited ; not 
a boat shall cross your harbor, not a coaster shall be 
permitted to go out of your ports, unless under permis- 
sion of the distant head of your nation, and after 
a grievous visitation of a custom-house officer ? " Sir, 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 71 

does any man believe that, with such a prospect into 
futurity, the people of that State would have for one 
moment listened to its adoption ? Rather would they 
not have rejected it with indignation ? Yet this, now, 
is not prophecy. It is history. But this law is not per- 
petual, it is said. Show the limit to it. Show by what 
terms it can be made more perpetual. 

The universal opinion entertained in New England 
among commercial men of the total imbecility of this 
law, as a measure of coercion of either belligerent, is 
another cause pregnant with discontent in that country. 
It ma}^ do well enough to amuse ourselves with calcula- 
tions of this kind on this floor ; but intelligent mer- 
chants, masters of vessels, seamen, who are acquainted 
with the West Indies, and with the European dominions 
of both powers, speak with sovereign contempt of the 
idea of starving either of these powers into submission 
to our plans of policy. The entire failure of this 
scheme, after a trial of eleven months, would, I should 
suppose, have satisfied the most obstinate of its hope- 
lessness. Yet it is revived again at this session. We 
are told from high authority of the failure of the wheat 
harvest in Great Britain, and this has been urged as a 
farther reason for a continuance of this measure. Have 
gentlemen who press this argument informed them- 
selves how exceedingly small a proportion our export of 
wheat bears to the whole consumption of the British 
dominions ? Our whole export to all the world of 
wheat in its natural and manufactured state does not 
amount to seven millions of bushels. The whole con- 
sumption of the British dominions exceeds one hundred 
and fifty millions. Let gentlemen consider what a 



72 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 

small object this amount is, in a national point of view, 
even could the attainment of the whole suppl}^ be 
assumed, as the condition of her yielding to the terms 
we should prescribe. Are not the borders of the Black 
Sea, the coast of Africa, and South America, all wheat 
countries, open to her commerce ? 

But the embargo saves our resources. It may justly 
be questioned, whether, in this point of view, the em- 
bargo is so eifectual as, at first, men are led to imagine. 
It may be doubted if the seed wheat for this harvest is 
not worth more than the whole crop. I say nothing of 
the embarrassments of our commerce, of the loss of our 
seamen, of the sunken value of real estate. But our 
dead, irredeemable loss, by this embargo, during the 
present year, cannot be stated at less than ten per 
cent on account of interest and profit on the whole ex- 
port of our country, — that is, on the one hundred and 
eight millions, — ten million eight hundred thousand 
dollars. 

Nor can our loss upon a million tons of unemployed 
shipping be stated at less than at twenty dollars the 
ton, twenty millions of dollars. Thirty millions of 
dollars is a serious outfit for any voyage of salvation, 
and the profit ought to be very unquestionable, before a 
wise man would be persuaded to renew or prolong it. 
Besides, is it true that the articles the embargo retains 
are in the common acceptation of the term resources ? 
I suppose that by this word, so ostentatiously used, on 
all occasions, it is meant to convey the idea that the 
produce thus retained in the country will be a resource 
for use or defence in case of war, or any other misfor- 
tune happening to it. But is this true ? Our exports 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 73 

are surplus products, — what we raise beyond what we 
consume. Because we cannot use them, they are sur- 
plus. Of course in this country they have little or no 
value in use, but only in exchange. Take away the 
power of exchange, and how can they be called re- 
sources ? Every year produces sufiBcient for its own 
consumption, and a surplus. Suppose an embargo of 
ten years, — will gentlemen seriously contend that the 
accumulating surplus of fish, cotton, tobacco, and flour 
would be a resource for any national exigencies ? We 
cannot consume it, because the annual product is equal 
to our annual consumption. Our embargo forbids us to 
sell it. How, then, is it a resource ; are we stronger or 
richer for it ? The reverse, we are weaker and poorer. 
Weaker by all the loss of motive to activity, by all the 
diminution of the industry of the country, which such a 
deprivation of the power to exchange produces. And 
what can be poorer than he who is obliged to keep 
what he cannot use, and to labor for that which profiteth 
not? 

But the inequality of the pressure of this measure of 
embargo upon the people of the Eastern States is an- 
other source of great discontent with it. Every gentle- 
man who has spoken upon the subject has seemed to 
take it for granted that this was a burden which pressed 
equally. But is this the case ? I shall confine myself 
to a single fact, although the point admits of other elu- 
cidations. Compare the State of Virginia with that of 
Massachusetts, in the single particular of the amount of 
capital embarrassed by this law. Virginia with a popu- 
lation, according to the last census, of nine hundred 
thousand souls, has four million seven hundred thou- 



74 SPEECH ON FOREIGN^ RELATIONS. 

sand dollars in exports, forty thousand eight hundred 
tons of registered shipping at thirty dollars the ton, 
amounting to one million seven hundred dollars in 
value ; constituting an aggregate capital of six millions 
of dollars, obstructed by this embargo. Massachusetts, 
on the other hand, has in exports twenty millions one 
hundred thousand dollars, and three hundred and six 
thousand tons of registered shipping, equal nearly to 
ten millions of dollars, in value ; constituting an aggre- 
gate of capital, in Massachusetts, equal to thirty mil- 
lions of dollars, obstructed by this law. By the last 
census, the population of Massachusetts is about six 
hundred thousand souls. So that in Virginia, nine 
hundred thousand souls have to bear a pressure of 
embarrassed capital equal to six millions of dollars, and 
in Massachusetts six hundred thousand souls a pressure 
of thirty millions. To equalize the pressurfe of Virginia 
with Massachusetts, the capital of the former ought to 
be forty -five millions instead of six millions. I wish 
not to bring into view any unpleasant comj)arisons, but 
when gentlemen wonder at our complaints they ought 
rightly to appreciate their causes. The pressure result- 
ing from the embarrassments of this immense capital is 
the more sensibly felt, inasmuch as it is not divided in 
great masses among rich individuals, but in moderate 
portions among the middling classes of our citizens, who 
have many of them the earnings of a whole life invested 
in single articles destined for a foreign market, from 
which your embargo alone prohibits them. 

It is in vain to say that if the embargo was raised 
there would be no market. The merchants understand 
that subject better than you ; and the eagerness with 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 75 

Avhich preparations to load were carried on previous to 
the commencement of this session speaks, in a language 
not to be mistaken, their oi)inion of the foreign markets. 
But it has been asked in debate, " Will not Massachu- 
setts, the cradle of liberty, submit to such privations ? " 
An embargo liberty was never cradled in Massachusetts. 
Our liberty was not so much a mountain as a sea 
nymph. She was free as air. She could swim, or she 
could run. The ocean was her cradle. Our fathers 
met her as she came, like the goddess of beauty, from 
the waves. They caught her as she was sporting on 
the beach. They courted her whilst she was spreading 
her nets upon the rocks. But an embargo liberty, — a 
hand-cuffed liberty ; a liberty in fetters ; a liberty trav- 
ersing between the four sides of a prison and beating 
her head against the walls, is none of our offspring. 
We abjure the monster. Its parentage is all inland. 

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr Macon) 
exclaimed the other day, " Where is the spirit of '76 ? " 
Aye, sir ; where is it ? Would to heaven, that at our 
invocation it would condescend to alight on this floor. 
But let gentlemen remember that the spirit of '76 was 
not a spirit of empty declaration, or of abstract proposi- 
tions. It did not content itself with non-importation 
acts or non-intercourse laws. It Avas a spirit of active 
preparation, of dignified energy. It studied both to 
know our rights and to devise the effectual means of 
maintaining them. In all the annals of '76, you will 
find no such degrading doctrine as that maintained in 
this report. It never presented to the people of the 
United States the alternative of war or a suspension of 
our rights, and recommended the latter rather than to 



76 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. J 

incur the risk of the former. What was the language 
of that period in one of the addresses of Congress to 
Great Britain ? " You attempt to reduce us, by the 
sword, to base and abject submission. On the sword, 
therefore, we rely for protection." In that day there 
were no alternatives presented to dishearten, — no 
abandonment of our rights under the pretence of main- 
taining them, — no gaining the battle by running 
away. In the whole history of that period there are no 
such terras as " embargo, — dignified retirement, — try- 
ing who can do each other the most harm." At that 
time we had a navy, that name so odious to the influ- 
ences of the present day. Yes, sir, in 1776, though but 
in our infancy, we had a navy scouring our coasts, and 
defending our commerce, which was never for one 
moment wholly suspended. In 1776 we had an army 
also ; and a glorious army it was ! not composed of 
men halting from the stews, or swept from the jails, but 
of the best blood, the real yeomanry of the countr}'-, 
noble cavaliers, men without fear and without reproach. 
We had such an army in 1776, and Washington at its 
head. We have an army in 1808, and a head to it. 

I will not humiliate those who lead the fortunes of 
the nation at the present day by any comparison with 
the great men of that period. But I recommend the 
advocates of the present system of public measures to 
study well the true spirit of 1776, before they venture 
to call it in aid of their purjDoses. It may bring in its 
train some recollections not suited to give ease or hope 
to their bosoms. I beg gentlemen who are so frequent 
in their recurrence to that period to remember that, 
among the causes which led to a separation from Great 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 77 

Britain, the following are enumerated, — unnecessary 
restrictions upon trade ; cutting off commercial inter- 
course between the colonies ; embarrassing our fish- 
eries ; wantonly depriving our citizens of necessaries ; 
invasion of private property by governmental edicts ; 
the authority of the commander-in-chief, and under him 
of the brigadier-general, being rendered supreme in the 
civil government ; the commander-in-chief of the army 
made governor of a colony ; citizens transferred fi-om 
their native country for trial. Let gentlemen beware 
how they appeal to the spirit of '76, lest it come with 
the aspect, not of a friend, but of a tormentor ; lest 
they find a warning, when they look for support, and 
instead of encouragement they are presented with an 
awful lesson. 

But repealing the embargo will be submission to trib- 
ute. The popular ear is fretted with this word " tribute." 
And an odium is attempted to be thrown upon those 
who are indignant at this abandonment of their rights, 
by representing them as the advocates of tribute. Sir, 
who advocates it ? No man, in this country, I believe. 
This outcry about tribute is the veriest bugbear that 
was ever raised, in order to persuade men to quit rights 
which God and nature had given them. In the first 
place, it is scarce possible that, if left to himself, the 
interest of the merchant could ever permit him to pay 
the British re-exportation duty, denominated tribute. 
France, under penalty of confiscation, prohibits our 
vessels from receiving a visit from an English ship, or 
touching at an English port. In this state of things, 
England pretends to permit us to export to France cer- 
tain articles, paying her a duty. The statement of the 



78 SPEECH ON rOREIGN RELATIONS. 

case shows the futility of the attempt. Who will pn}- 
a duty to England for permission to go to France to Le 
confiscated ? But, suppose there is a mistake in this, 
and that it may be the interest of the merchant to pay 
such duty, for the purpose of going to certain destruc- 
tion, have not you full powers over this matter ? Can- 
not you, by pains and penalties, prohibit the merchant 
from the payment of such a duty ? No man will ob- 
struct you. There is, as I believe, but one opinion 
upon this subject : I hope, therefore, that gentlemen 
will cease this outcry about tribute. 

However, suppose that the payment of this duty is 
inevitable, which it certainly is not. Let me ask, is 
embargo independence ? Deceive not yourselves. It 
is palpable submission. Gentlemen exclaim, Great 
Britain " smites us on one cheek ; " and what does ad- 
ministration ? "It turns the other also." Gentlemen 
say, Great Britain is a robber ; she " takes our cloak ; " 
and what say administration ? " Let her take our coat 
also." France and Great Britain requires you to relin- 
quish a part of your commerce, and you yield it entirely. 
Sir, this conduct may be the way to dignity and honor 
in another world, but it will never secure safety and 
independence in this. 

At every corner of this great city we meet some gen- 
tlemen of the majority, wringing their hands and ex- 
claiming, "What shall we do? Nothing but embargo 
will save us. Remove it, and what shall we do ? " Sir, 
it is not for me, an humble and uninfluential individual, 
at an awful distance from the predominant influences, 
to suggest plans of government. But, to my eye, the 
path of our duty is as distinct as the milky way ; all 



SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 79 

studded Avitli living sapphires ; gloAving with cumulat- 
ing light. It is the path of active preparation, of dig- 
nified energy. It is the path of 1776. It consists, not 
in abandoning our rights, but in supporting them, as 
they exist, and where they exist, — on the ocean, as 
well as on the land. It consists, in taking the nature 
of things as the measure of the rights of your citizens, 
not the orders and decrees of imperious foreigners. 
Give what protection you can. Take no counsel of 
fear. Your strength will increase with the trial, and 
prove greater than you are now aAvare. 

But I shall be told, " This may lead to war." I ask, 
" Are we now at peace ? " Certainly not, unless retir- 
ing from insult be peace, unless shrinking under the 
lash be peace. The surest way to prevent war is not to 
fear it. The idea that nothing oa earth is so dreadful 
as war is inculcated too studiously among us. Dis- 
grace is worse. Abandonment of essential rights is 
worse. 

Sir, I could not refrain from seizing the first opportu- 
nity of spreading before this House the sufferings and 
exigencies of New England under this embargo. Some 
gentlemen may deem it not strictly before us. In my 
opinion, it is necessaril3\ For, if the idea of the com- 
mittee be correct, and embargo is resistance, then this 
resolution sanctions its continuance. If, on the con- 
trary, as I contend, embargo is submission, then this 
resolution is a pledge of its repeal. 



SECOND SPEECH 

ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN 
RELATIONS; IN REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS 
OF MR. BACON. 

Dec. 7, 1808. 



SECOND SPEECH 



ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN 
RELATIONS; IN REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF 
MR. BACON. 

Dec. 7, 1808. 



[The speech of the 28th of November made Mr. Quincy for 
the time being what Daniel O'Connell said of himself, " the best 
abused man living," both in Congress and by the Democratic 
press throughout the country. He was consoled, however, by 
Federal praise, quite as warm as the Democratic censure. On 
the 7th of the next month he took or made occasion for the fol- 
lowing speech, in reply to his chief assailants, — Ed.] 

Mr. Speaker, — I offer myself to the view of this 
House with very sensible embarrassment, in attempting 
to follow the honorable member from Tennessee (Mr. 
Campbell), — a gentleman who holds so distinguished a 
station on this floor, through thy blessing, Mr. Speaker, 
on his talents and industry. I place myself, with much 
reluctance, in competition with this our great political 
^neas, — an illustrious leader of antiquity, whom in his 
present relations, and with his present projects, the gen- 
tleman from Tennessee not a little resembles. Since, 
in order to evade the ruin impending over our cities, 
taking m}^ honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) by one hand, 
and the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. INIont- 
gomery) by the other, little lulus, and Avife Creusa, he 



84 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

is posting away into the "woods, with Father Anchises 
and all the household gods. 

When I had the honor of addressing this House, a 
few days ago, I touched this famous report of our com- 
mittee on foreign relations, perhaps, a little too carelessly; 
perhaj)s, I handled it a little too roughly, considering 
its tender age and the manifest delicacy of its con- 
stitution. But, sir, I had no idea of affecting very 
exquisitely the sensibilities of any gentleman. I thought 
that this was a common report of one of our ordinary 
committees, which I had a right to canvass, or to slight, 
to applaud, or to censure, without raising any extraor- 
dinary concern, either here or elsewhere. But, from the 
general excitement which my inconsiderate treatment 
of this subject occasions, I fear that I have been mis- 
taken. This can be no mortal fabric, Mr. Speaker. This 
must be that image which fell down from Jupiter, — 
present or future. Surely nothing but a being of 
celestial origin would raise such tumult in minds 
attempered like those which lead the destinies of 
this House. 

Sir, I thought that this report had been a common 
piece of wood, — " Inutile lignum.''^ Sir, just such a piece 
of wood as any day laborer might have hewed out, in an 
hour, had he health and a hatchet. But it seems that 
our honorable chairman of the committee of foreign 
relations " maluit esse Deum.^^ Well, sir, I have no 
objections. If the workmen will, a god it shall be. 
I only wish, when gentlemen bring their sacred things 
upon this floor, that they would " blow a trumpet before 
them, as the heathens do," on such occasions, to the 
end that all true believers may prepare themselves to 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 85 

adore and tremble, and that all unbelievers may turn 
aside, and not disturb their devotions. 

I assure gentlemen that I meant to commit no sacri- 
lege. I had no intention, sir, of canvassing very strictly 
this report. I supposed that, when it had been published 
and circulated, it had answered all the purposes of its 
authors, and I felt no disposition to interfere with them. 
But the House is my witness that I am compelled, by 
the clamor raised, on all sides, by the friends of ad- 
ministration, to descend to particulars, and to examine it 
somewhat minutely. 

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was i^leased the 
other day to assert : . . . Sir, in referring to his observa- 
tions on a former occasion, I beg the House not to 
imagine that I am about to follow him. No, sir, I 
will neither follow nor imitate him. I hang upon no 
man's skirts. I run barking at no man's heel. I can- 
vass principles and measures, solely with a view to the 
great interests of my country. The idea of personal 
victory is lost in the total absorption of sense and mind 
in the importance of impending consequences. I say 
he was pleased to assert that I had dealt in general 
allegations against this report, without pointing out any 
particular objection. And the honorable chairman (Mr. 
Campbell) has reiterated the charge. Both have treated 
this alleged omission with no little asperity. Yet, 
sir, it is very remarkable that, so far from dealing 
in general allegations, I explicitly stated my objections. 
The alternatives presented by the report — war or sus- 
pension of our rights, and the recommendation of the 
latter, rather than take the risk of the former — I ex- 
pressly censured. I went farther, — I compared these 



86 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

alternatives with an extract from an address made by 
the first Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Great 
Britain, and attempted to show, by way of contrast, 
what I thought the disgraceful spirit of the report. 
Yet these gentlemen complain that I dealt in general 
allegations. Before I close, sir, they will have, I hope, 
no reason to repeat such objections. I trust I shall be 
particular to their content. 

Before entering upon an examination of this report, it 
may be useful to recollect how it originated. 

By the 3d section of the 2d article of the Constitution, 
it is declared that the President of the United States 
" shall, from time to time, give to Congress information 
of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con- 
sideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and 
expedient." It is, then, the duty of the President to 
recommend such measures as in his judgment Congress 
ought to adopt. A great crisis is impending over our 
country. It is a time of alarm and peril and distress. 
How has the President performed this constitutional 
duty ? Why, after recapitulating, in a formal message, 
our dangers and his trials, he expresses his confidence 
that we shall, " with an unerring regard to the essential 
rights and interests of the nation, weigh and compare 
the painful alternatives out of which a choice is to be 
made," and that " the alternative chosen will be main- 
tained with fortitude and patriotism." In this way our 
chief magistrate performs his duty. A storm is ap- 
proaching, — the captain calls his choice hands upon 
deck, leaves the rudder swinging, and sets the crew to 
scuffle about alternatives. This message, pregnant with 
nondescript alternatives, is received b}^ this House. 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 87 

And Avliat do we ? Why, constitute a great committee 
of foreign relations, and, lest they should not have their 
attention completely occupied by the pressing exigencies 
of those with France and Great Britain, thej^ are en- 
dowed with the whole mass, British, Spanish, and 
French ; Barbary powers and Indian neighbors. And 
what does this committee ? Why, after seven days' 
solemn conclave, they present to this House an illustri- 
ous report, loaded with alternatives, — nothing but 
alternatives. The cold meat of the palace is hashed and 
served up to us, piping hot, from our committee room. 

In considering this report, I shall pay no attention to 
either its beginning or its conclusion. The former con- 
sists of shavings from old documents, and the latter of 
birdlime for new converts. The twelfth iMge is the 
heart of this rejjort. That I mean to canvass. And I do 
assert that there is not one of all the principal positions 
contained in it which is true, in the sense and to the 
extent assumed by the committee. Let us examine 
each separately. 

" Your committee can perceive no other alternative 
but abject and degrading submission, — war with both 
nations, or a continuance and enforcement of the pres- 
ent suspension of our commerce." Here is a trifurcate 
alternative. Let us consider each branch, and see if 
either be true in the sense assumed l)y the committee. 
The first, " abject and degrading submission," takes two 
things for granted, — that trading, pending the edicts of 
France and Great Britain, is submission ; and next, that 
it is submission in its nature, abject and degrading. 
Neither is true. It is not submission to trade, pending 
those edicts, because they do not command you to trade. 



00 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIONS. 

They command you not to trade. When you refuse to 
trade you submit, not when 3'ou carry on that trade, as far 
as you can, which they prohibit. Agam, it is not true that 
such trading is abject and disgraceful, and that, too, upon 
the principles avowed by the advocates of this report. 
Trading, while these edicts are suspended over our com- 
merce, is submission, sa}'' they, because we have not 
jjhysical force to resist the power of these belligerents ; 
of course, if we trade, we must submit to these restric- 
tions ; not having power to evade, or break through 
them. Now, admit for the sake of argument what, 
however, in fact I deny, that the belligerents have the 
power to carry into effect their decrees so perfectly that, 
by reason of the orders of Great Britain, we are physi- 
cally disabled from going to France, and that by the 
edicts of France, we are, in like manner, disabled from 
going to Great Britain. If such be our case, in relation 
to these powers, the question is, whether submitting to 
exercise all the trade which remains to us, notwith- 
standing the edicts, is " abject and degrading." 

In the first place, I observe that submission is not to 
beings constituted as we are always " abject and degrad- 
ing." We submit to the decrees of providence, — to the 
laws of our nature, — absolute weakness submits to abso- 
lute power, — and there is nothing, in such submission, 
shameful or degrading. It is no dishonor, for finite, not 
to contend with infinite. There is no loss of reputation 
if creatures such as men perform not impossibilities. If, 
then, it be true, in the sense asserted by some of the 
advocates of this report, that it is physically impossible 
for us to trade with France and Great Britain and their 
dependencies by reason of these edicts, still there is 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 89 

nothing " abject or degrading " in carrying on such 
trade as these edicts leave open to us, let it be never so 
small or so trifling ; which, however, it might be easily 
shown, as it has been, that it is neither the one nor the 
other. Sir, in this point of view, it is no more disgrace- 
ful for us to trade to Sweden, to China, to the North- 
West coast, or to Spain and her dependencies, not one 
of which countries is now included in those edicts, than 
it is disgraceful for us to walk, because we are unable 
to fly ; no more than it is shameful for man to use and 
enjoy the surface of this globe, because he has not at 
his command the whole circle of nature, and cannot 
range at will over all the glorious spheres which 
constitute the universe. 

Tlie gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) called 
upon us just now to tell him what was disgraceful sub- 
mission, if carrying on commerce under these restrictions 
was not such submission. I will tell that gentleman. 
That submission is " abject and disgraceful,'' which 
yields to the decrees of frail and feeble power, as though 
they were irresistible, — which takes counsel of fear, and 
weighs not our comparative force, — which abandons the 
whole at a summons to deliver up a part, — which 
makes the will of others the measure of rights which 
God and nature, not only have constituted eternal and 
unalienable, but have also indued us with ample means 
to maintain. 

My argument, on this clause of the report of the com- 
mittee, may be presented in this form. Either the United 
States have, or they have not, physical ability to carry on 
commerce, in defiance of the edicts of both, or of either, 
of these nations. If we have not physical ability to carry 



90 SECOND SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 

on the trade which they prohibit, then it is no disgrace 
to exercise that commerce which these irresistible de- 
crees permit. 'If we have such physical ability, then to 
the degree in which we abandon that commerce which 
we have the power to carry on, is our submission " abject 
and disgraceful." It is yielding without struggle. It is 
sacrificing our rights, not because we have not force, but 
because we have not sj^irit, to maintain them. It is 
in this point of view that I am disgusted with this 
report. It abjures what it recommends. It declaims 
in heroics against submission, and proposes in creeping 
prose a tame and servile subserviency. 

It cannot be concealed, let gentlemen try as much 
as they Avill, that we can trade, not only with one, but 
with both these belligerents, notwithstanding these 
restrictive decrees. The risk to Great Britain against 
French capture scarcely amounts to two per cent. That 
to France against Great Britain is, unquestionably, much 
greater. But what is that to us ? It is not our fault, if 
the power of Britain on the ocean is superior to that of 
Bonaparte. It is equal and exact justice, between both 
nations, for us to trade with both as far as it is in our 
power. Great as the power of Britain is on the ocean, 
the enterprise and . intrepidity of our merchants are 
more than a match for it. They will get your products 
to the Continent, in spite of her navy. But suppose 
they do not? Suppose they fail, and are captured in 
the attempt ? What is that to us after we have given 
them full notice of all their dangers, and perfect warn- 
ing, either of our inabilitv or of our determination not 
to protect them ? If they take the risk it is at their peril. 
And upon whom does the loss fall ? As it does now, 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 91 

through the operation of your embargo, on the planter, 
on the farmer, on the mechanic, on the day laborer ? 
No, sir. On the insurer, on the capitalist, on those 
who, in the full exercise of their intelligence, apprised 
of all circumstances, are willing to take the hazard for 
the sake of the profit. 

I will illustrate my general idea by a supposition. 
There are two avenues to the ocean from the harbor of 
New York, — by the Narrows and through Long Island 
Sound. Suppose the fleets both of France and Great 
Britain should block up the Narrows, so that to pass 
them would be physically impossible in the relative 
state of our naval force. Will gentlemen seriously con- 
tend that there would be any thing " abject or disgrace- 
ful *' if the people of New York should submit to carry 
on their trade through the Sound ? Would the remedy 
for this interference with our rights be abandoning the 
ocean altogether ? Again, suppose that, instead of both 
nations blockading the same, each should station its 
force at a different one, — France at the mouth of the 
Sound, Britain at the Narrows. In such case would 
staying at liome and refusing any more to go upon 
the sea be exercise of independence in the citizens of 
New York? Great philosophers may call it "dignified 
retirement" if they will. I call it, and I am mistaken 
if the people would not also call it, " base and abject 
submission." Sir, what in such a case would be true 
honor ? Why, to consider well which adversary is 
weakest, and cut our way to our rights through the 
path which he obstructs. Having removed the smaller 
impediment, we should return with courage strength- 
ened by trial and animated by success, to the relief of our 



92 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

rights from the pressure of the strongest assailant. But 
all this is war. And war is never to be incurred. If 
this be the national principle, avow it. Tell your mer- 
chants you will not protect them. But for heaven's 
sake do not deny them the power of relieving their 
own and the nation's burdens by the exercise of their 
own ingenuity. Sir, impassable as the barriers offered 
by these edicts are in the estimation of members on this 
floor, the merchants abroad do not estimate them as in- 
surmountable. Their anxiety to risk their property in 
defiance of them is full evidence of this. The great 
danger to mercantile ingenuity is internal envy ; the cor- 
rosion of weakness or prejudice. Its external hazard 
is ever infinitely smaller. That practical intelligence 
which this class of men possesses beyond any other in 
the community, excited by self-interest, the strongest 
of human passions, is too elastic to be confined by 
the limits of exterior human powers, however great or 
uncommon. Build a Chinese wall, the wit of your 
merchants, if permitted freely to operate, will break 
through it, or overleap it, or under-creep it. 

..." mille adde catenas, 

EflFugiet tameii hsec sceleratus vinciila Proteus." 

The second branch of the alternatives under considera- 
tion is equally deceptive : " War with both nations." 
Can this ever be an alternative ? Did you ever read in 
history, can you conceive in fancy, a war with two 
nations, each of whom is at war with the other, with- 
out an union with one against the other immediately 
resulting ? It cannot exist in nature. The very idea 
is absurd. It never can be an alternative whether we 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 93 

shall fight two nations, each hostile to the other. But 
it may be, and, if we are to fight at all, it is a very 
serious question, which of the two we are to select as 
an adversary. As to the third branch of these cele- 
brated alternatives, " a continuance and enforcement of 
the present system of commerce," I need not spend 
time to show that this does not include all the alterna- 
tives which exist under this head, since the committee 
immediately admit that there does exist another alter- 
native, "partial repeal," about which they proceed to 
reason. 

The report proceeds: "The first" (abject and de- 
grading submission) " cannot require any discussion." 
Certainly not. Submission of that quality which the 
committee assume, and with the epithets of which they 
choose to invest it, can never require discussion at any 
time. But whether trading under these orders and de- 
crees be such submission, whether we are not competent 
to resist them, in part, if not in whole, without a total 
abandonment of the exercise of all our maritime rights, 
the comparative effects of the edicts of each upon our 
commerce, and the means we possess to influence or 
control either, are all fair and proper subjects of discus- 
sion, some of which the committee have wholly neg- 
lected, and none of which have they examined as the 
House had a right to expect. 

The committee proceed " to dissipate the illusion " 
that there is any "middle course," and to reassert the 
position before examined, that " there is no other alter- 
native than war with both nations, or a continuance 
of the present system." This position they undertake 
to support by two assertions: First, that "war with 



94 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

one of the belligerents only would be submission to the 
edicts and will of the other ; " second, that " repeal, in 
whole or in part, of the embargo must necessarily be 
war or submission." 

As to the first assertion, it is a miserable fallacy, con- 
founding coincidence of interest with a subjection of 
will ; things in their nature palpably distinct. A man 
may do what another wills, nay, what he commands, 
and not act in submission to his will or in obedience to 
his command. Our interest or duty may coincide with 
the line of conduct another presumes to prescribe. Shall 
we vindicate our independence at the expense of our 
social or moral obligations ? I exemplify my idea in 
this way : Two bullies beset your door, from which 
there are but two avenues. One of them forbids you 
to go by the left, the other forbids you to go by the 
right avenue. Each is willing that you should pass by 
the way which he permits. In such case, what will 
you do ? Will you keep house for ever rather than 
make cbgice of the path through which you will re- 
sume your external rights ? You cannot go both ways 
at once ; you must make your election. Yet in making 
such election you must necessarily coincide with the 
wishes and act according to the commands of one of 
the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever 
thought an election of one of two inevitable courses 
made under such circumstances " abject and degrading 
submission " to the will of either of the assailants. The 
second assertion, that " repeal, in whole or in part, of 
the embargo must necessarily be war or submission " 
the committee proceed to maintain by several subsid- 
iary assertions : First, " A general repeal, without 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 95 

arming", would be submission to both nations." So far 
from this being true, the reverse is the fact : it would 
be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, 
"You shall trade with me." France does not sa}-, " You 
shall trade with me." If this was the language of their 
edicts, there might be some cause for the assertion of the 
committee, If we trade with either we submit. The 
edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my 
adversary. Our servile, knee-crooking embargo says, 
" You shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission 
be more palpable, more " abject, more disgraceful ! " 
A general repeal without arming would be only an 
exercise of our natural rights under the protection of 
our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical 
power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not is a 
question of political expediency and of relative force. 
It may be very true that we can fight our M^ay to neither 
country, and yet it may be also very true that we may 
carry on a very important commerce with both. The 
strength of the national arm may not be equal to con- 
tend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may 
be an overmatch for the edicts of all. The question of 
arming or not arming has reference only to the mode in 
which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to 
the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. 
To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, 
we may possibly extend the field beyond that which 
mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the exten- 
sion thus required be worthy of the risk and expense is 
a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trad- 
ing as far as we have ability made more abject than not 
trading at all. 



96 vSECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

I come to the second subsidiary assertion : "A gen- 
eral repeal and arming of merchant vessels would be 
war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the 
enemies to plunder us without retaliation upon them." 

I have before exposed the absurdity of a war with 
two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot 
be true, therefore, that " a general repeal and arming 
our merchant vessels " would be such a war. Neither 
if war resulted would it be " war of the worst kind." 
In my humble apprehension a war in which our ene- 
mies are permitted to plunder us and our merchants not 
permitted to defend their pro^Dcrty, is somewhat worse 
than a war like this, in which, with arms in their hands, 
our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for 
their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of prop- 
erty which we might be able to preserve by these means, 
would such a war be better than that in which we are 
now engaged. For the committee assure us (page 14) 
that the aggressions to which we are subject " are to all 
intents and purposes a maritime war, waged by both 
nations against the United States." 

The last assertion of the committee in this most mas- 
terlj^ page is, that " a jDartial repeal must, from the situ- 
ation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one 
of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the 
name of common sense, how can this be true ? The 
trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, are not now af- 
fected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. 
How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to 
trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain 
command nor prohibit it ? Of what consequence is it 
to us in what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN KELATIONS. 97 

ouv products after he has paid us our price ? I am not 
about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat 
the purpose of coercing Great Britain through the want 
of our supplies. But I reason on the report upon its 
avowed. principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system 
as a means of coercion, let the administration avow it as 
such, and support the system by arguments such as their 
friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as 
those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against 
Great Britain ; that it is better than " ball and gun- 
powder." Let them show that the means are adequate 
to the end ; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of 
all this suffering, a happy salvation and a glorious vic- 
tory, and the people may then submit to it, even with- 
out murmur. But while the administration support their 
system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of 
safety and preservation, those who canvass their prin- 
ciple are not called upon to contest with them on ground 
which not only they do not take, but which officially 
the}^ disavow. -As partial repeal would not be submis- 
sion to either, so also it would not be war with either. 
A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain ; 
that nation is her ally, and she permits it : nor with 
France ; though Sweden is her enemy, she does not 
prohibit it. "Ah! but," say the committee (page 13), 
" a measure which would supply exclusively one of the 
belligerents would be war with the other." This is the 
state secret ; this is the master-key to the whole policy. 
You must not only not do what the letter of these orders 
prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. 
The great purpose is to prevent your products from 
getting to our enemy ; and to effect this you must not 



98 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees ; but, 
keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you 
must extend their construction to cases which they can- 
not by any rule of reason be made to include. 

Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have 
submitted to the task of canvassing it if gentlemen had 
not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. 
I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide 
whether the position I took in the commencement of 
my argument is not maintained, — that there is not one 
of the princij)al positions contained in this twelfth page, 
the heart of this report, which is true in the sense and 
to the extent assumed by the committee. 

It was under these general impressions that I used 
the word " loathsome," which has so often been re- 
peated. Sir, it may not have been a well-chosen word. 
It was that which happened to come to hand first. I 
meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a 
mass of bold assumptions and of ill-cemented sophisms. 

I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was 
disgraceful." Sir, I meant no reflection upon the com- 
mittee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the 
character of the spirit which they recommend, or by 
which they are actuated. When called upon to reason 
concerning that which by adoption is to become identi- 
fied with the national character, I am bound to speak of 
it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken, yet 
I ask the question. Is not the spirit which it breathes 
disgraceful ? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exer- 
cise of all our commercial rights because our rivals 
interfere with a part ? not only to refrain from exercis- 
ing that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 99 

offence to decline that which they permit ? Is it not 
disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults 
and plunderings and burnings and confiscations and 
murders and actual war made upon us, to talk of 
nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of 
still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating 
further out of " harm's way " ? If this course be 
adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concern- 
ing its real character. But to my sense this whole 
report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of 
the abandonment of our essential rights, and apologies 
for doing it. 

Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice 
some observations which have been made in different 
quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early 
stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to 
its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) 
was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people, 
over the heads of the whole government, against the 
authority of a law which had not only the sanction of 
all the legislative branches o^f the government, but also 
of the judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did 
not so much as threaten it. I admitted expressly the 
binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, 
which I ever will claim and ever will exercise, to urge 
on this floor my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a 
laAV and my reasons for that opinion as a valid ground 
for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do 
more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in 
its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if 
it be unconstitutional, I will not fail, in every fair and 
honorable way, to awaken the people to a sense of their 



100 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

peril, and to quicken them, by the exercise of their con- 
stitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and pos- 
terity from ruin. 

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased 
to refer to me as a man of divisions and distinctions, 
waging war with adverbs and dealing in figures. Sir, I 
am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop " from 
his pride of place " at such humble game as my poor style 
presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but 
confess that " deeming high" of this station which I 
hold ; standing, as it were, in the awful presence of an 
assembled people, — I am more than ordinarily anxious, 
on all occasions, to select the best thoughts in ni}^ nar- 
row storehouse, and to adapt to them the most appro- 
priate dress in my intellectual wardrobe. I know not 
whether on this account I am justly obnoxious to the 
asperity of my honorable colleague. But on the subject 
of figures, Mr. Speaker, this I know, and cannot refrain 
from assuring this House, that as, on the one hand, I 
shall, to the extent of my humble talents, always be 
ambitious, and never cease striving, to make a decent 
figure on this floor, so, on the other, I never can be am- 
bitious, but, on the contrary, shall ever strive chiefly 
to avoid cutting a figure like my honorable colleague. 

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup), the other 
day, told this House that, if commerce were permitted, 
such was the state of our foreign relations, none but 
bankrupts would carry on trade. Sir, the honorable 
gentleman has not attained correct information in this 
particular. I do not believe that I state any thing 
above the real fact when I say that, on the day this leg- 
islature assembled, one hundred vessels, at least, were 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 101 

lying in the different ports and harbors of New England, 
loaded, riding at single anchor, ready and anxious for 
nothing so much as for your leave to depart. Certainly, 
this does not look much like any doubt that a field of 
advantageous commerce would open if you would unbar 
the door to our citizens. That this was the case in 
JNIassachusetts, I know. Before I left that part of the 
country, I had several applications from men who stated 
that they had property in such situations, and soliciting 
me to give them the earliest information of your proba- 
ble policy. The men so applying, sir, I can assure the 
House, were not bankrupts, but intelligent merchants, 
shrewd to perceive their true interests, keen to pursue 
them. An honorable gentleman (Mr. Troup, of Geor- 
gia) was also pleased to speak of "a paltry trade in 
potash and codfish," and to refer to me as the repre- 
sentative of men who raised " beef and pork, and butter 
and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages." Well, sir, I 
confess the fact. I am the representative, in part, of 
men the products of whose industry are beef and pork, 
and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages. And 
let me tell that honorable gentleman that I would not 
yield the honor of representing such men to be the rep- 
sentative of all the growers of cotton and rice and to- 
bacco and indigo in the whole world. Sir, the men 
wliom I represent not only raise these humble articles, 
but they do it with the labor of their own hands, M'ith 
the sweat of their own brows. And by this, their hab- 
itual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of 
nerve, a strength of muscle, and a spirit and intelligence 
somewhat characteristic. And let me assure that hon- 
orable gentleman that the men of whom I speak will 



102 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

not, at his call nor at the invitation of any set of men 
from his quarter of the Union, undertake to " drive one 
another into the ocean." But, on the contrary, when- 
ever they once realize that their rights are invaded, 
they will unite, like a band of brothers, and drive their 
enemies there. 

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. John- 
son), speaking of the embargo, said that this was the 
kind of conflict which our fathers waged ; and my hon- 
orable colleague (Mr. Bacon) made a poor attempt to 
confound this policy with the non-intercourse and non- 
importation agreement of 1774 and 1775. Sir, nothing- 
can be more dissimilar. The non-intercourse and non- 
importation agreement of that period, so far from de- 
stroying commerce, fostered and encouraged it. The 
trade with Great Britain was, indeed, voluntarily ob- 
structed, but the enterprise of our merchants found a 
new incentive in the commerce with all the other 
nations of the globe, which succeeded immediately on 
our escape from the monopoly of the mother country. 
Our navigation was never suspended. The field of 
commerce, at that period, so far from being blasted by 
pestiferous regulations, was extended by the effect of 
the restrictions adopted. 

But, let us grant all they assert. Admit, for the sake 
of argument, that the embargo which restrains us now 
from communication with all the world is precisely 
synonymous with that non-intercourse and non-impor- 
tation which restrained us then from Great Britain. 
Suppose the war which we now wage with that nation 
is in every respect the same as that which our fathers 
wa,ged with her in 1774 and 1775. Have we, from the 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 103 

effects of their trial, any lively hope of success in our 
present attempt ? Did our fathers either effect a change 
in her injurious policy, or prevent a war, by non-impor- 
tation and non-intercourse ? Sir, they did neither the 
one nor the other. Her policy was never changed 
until she had been beaten on our soil in an eight years' 
war. Our fathers never relied upon non-intercourse 
and non-importation as measures of hostile coercion. 
They placed their dependence upon them solely as 
means of pacific influence among the people of that 
nation. The relation in which this country stood at 
that time, with regard to Great Britain, gave a weight 
and a potency to these measures then which, in our 
present relation to her, we can neither hope nor imagine 
possible. At that period we were her colonies, a part 
of her family. Our prosperity was essentially hers. So 
it was avowed in this country, so it was admitted in 
Great Britain. Every refusal of intercourse which had 
a tendency to show the importance of these, then colo- 
nies, to the parent country, of the part to the whole, 
was a natural and a wise means of giving weight to our 
remonstrances. We pretended not to control, but to 
influence, by making her feel our importance. In this 
attempt, we excited no national pride on the other side 
of the Atlantic. Our success was no national degra- 
dation ; for the more we developed our resources and 
relative weight, the more we discovered the strength 
and resources of the British power. We were then 
component parts of it. All the measures of the colonies, 
antecedent to the Declaration of Independence, had this 
princijile for its basis. As such, non-importation and 
non-intercourse were adopted in this countr3^ As such, 



104 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

they met the co-operation of the patriots of Great 
Britain, who deemed tliemselves deviating from none of 
their national duties Avhen they avowed themselves the 
allies of American patriots, to drive, through the influ- 
ence of the loss of our trade, the ministry from their 
places or their measures. Those patriots did co-operate 
with our fathers, and that openly, in exciting discontent 
under the effect of our non-intercourse agreements. In 
so doing, they failed in none of their obligations to their 
sovereign. In no nation, can it ever be a failure of duty 
to maintain that the safety of the whole depends on 
preserving its due weight to every part. Yet, notwith- 
standing the natural and little suspicious use of these 
instruments of influence ; notwithstanding the zeal of 
the American people coincided with the views of the 
Congress, and a mighty party existed in Great Britain 
openly leagued with our fathers to give weight and 
effect to their measures, — they did not effect the pur- 
poses for which they were put into operation. The 
British policy was not abandoned. War was not pre- 
vented. How, then, can any encouragement be drawn 
from that precedent, to support us under the pri- 
vations of the present system of commercial suspen- 
sion ? Can any nation admit that the trade of another 
is so important to her welfare as that, on its being 
withdrawn, any obnoxious policy must be abandoned, 
without at the same time admitting that she is no 
longer independent ? Sir, I could indeed wish that 
it were in our power to regulate not only Great Britain 
but the whole world by opening or closing our ports. It 
would be a glorious thing for our country to j)ossess 
such a mighty weapon of offence. But, acting in a 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 105 

public capacity, with the high responsibilities resulting 
from the great interests dependent upon my decision, I 
cannot yield to the wishes of love-sick patriots, or the 
visions of teeming enthusiasts. I must see the ade- 
quac}' of means to their ends. I must see not merely 
that it is very desirable that Great Britain should be 
brought to our feet by this embargo, but that there is 
some likelihood of such a consequence to the measure, 
before I can concur in that universal distress and ruin 
which, if much longer continued, will inevitably result 
from it. Since, then, every dictate of sense and reflec- 
tion convinces me of the utter futility of this system, 
as a means of coercion on Great Britain, I shall not hesi- 
tate to urge its abandonment. No, sir, not even, al- 
though, like others, I should be assailed by all the terrors 
of the outcry of British influence. 

Reall}^ Mr. Speaker, I know not how to express the 
shame and disgust with which I am filled when I hear 
language of this kind cast out upon this floor, and 
thrown in the faces of men standing justly at no mean 
height in the confidence of their countrymen. Sir, I 
did indeed know that such vulgar aspersions were cir- 
culating among the lower passions of our nature. I 
knew that such vile substances were ever tempering 
between the paws of some printer's devil. I knew that 
foul exhalations, like these, daily rose in our cities, and 
crept along the ground, just as high as the spirits of 
lamp-black and saline oil could elevate ; falling soon, by 
native baseness, into oblivion. I knew, too, that this 
species of party insinuation Avas a mighty engine in 
this quarter of the country on an election day, played 
off from the top of a stump, or the toj? of a hogshead, 



106 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 

while the gin circulated, while barbecue was roasting ; 
in those happy, fraternal associations and consociations, 
when those who speak utter without responsibility and 
those who listen hear without scrutiny. But little did 
I think that such odious shapes would dare to obtrude 
themselves on this national floor, among honorable men, 
and select representatives, the confidential agents of a 
wise, a thoughtful, and a virtuous people. I want lan- 
guage to express my contempt and indignation at the 
sight. 

So far as respects the attempt which has been made 
to cast such aspersion on that part of the country which 
I have the honor to represent, I beg this honorable 
House to understand that, so long as they who circulated 
such insinuations deal only in generals and touch not 
particulars, they may gain among the ignorant and the 
stupid a vacant and a staring audience. But when 
once these suggestions are brought to bear upon those 
individuals who, in New England, have naturally the 
confidence of their countrymen, there is no power in 
these calumnies. The men who now lead the influences 
of that country, and in whose councils the peoj)le on 
the day when the tempest shall come Avill seek refuge, 
are men whose stake is in the soil, whose interests are 
identified with those of the mass of their brethren, 
whose private lives and public sacrifices present a never- 
failing antidote to the poison of malicious invectives. 
On such men, sir, party spirit may indeed cast its 
odious filth, but there is a polish in their virtues to 
which no such slime can adhere. They are owners of 
the soil, real yeomanry ; many of them men who led in 
the councils of our country in the dark day which pre- 



SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 107 

ceded national independence ; many of them men who, 
like my honorable friend from Connecticut, on my left 
(Colonel Talmage), stood foremost on the perilous edge 
of battle, making their breasts in the day of danger a 
bulwark for their country. 

True it is, Mr. Speaker, there is another and a much 
more numerous class, composed of such as, through 
defect of age, can claim no share in the glories of our 
Revolution : such as have not yet been blest with the 
happy opportunity of "playing the man" for their 
country ; generous sons of illustrious sires ; men not 
to be deterred from fulfilling the high obligations they 
owe to this people by the sight of these foul and offen- 
sive weapons. Men who, with little experience of their 
own to boast, will fly to the tombs of their fathers, and 
questioning concerning their duties the spirit which 
hovers there, will no more shrink from maintaining their 
native rights, through fear of the sharpness of malevo- 
lent tongues, than they will, if put to the trial, shrink 
from defending them, through fear of the sharpness of 
their enemies' swords. 



SPEECH 



ON THE BILL FOR RAISING FIFTY THOUSAND 
VOLUNTEERS. 

Dec. 30. 1808. 



SPEECH 

ON THE BILL FOR RAISING FIFTY THOUSAND 
VOLUNTEERS. 

Dec. 30, 1808. 



[In the course of December, 1808, a bill was introcluced for 
raising fifty thousand volunteers. It caused excited discussions 
between the two parties. The administration affirmed that this 
force should be j^rovided in case the embargo should foil of its 
purpose and war should ensue. The Federalists were willing 
to vote for the bill provided its object was defined. If the ad- 
ministration contemplated war, they would vote for an}- necessary 
force to carry it on. But, if the purpose of the proposed army 
was to enforce the embargo, they should resist it to the utmost 
of their ability. It was on this occasion that Mr, Quincy made 
the following speech, on the 30th of December, 1808, which 
caused a great excitement, as will be seen by the interruptions 
of the friends of the bill. — Ed,] 

I AGREE with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Ej)pes) that the present is a period in which it becomes 
members of this legislature to maintain their indepen- 
dence and not to shrink from responsibility. I agree that 
it is a time in which all men in places of trust should 
weigh well the principles by which they are actuated 
and the ends at which the}'' aim ; and that they should 
mark both so distinctly as that they may be fully under- 



112 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 

stood by the people. But I hope it is not, and that there 
never will be, a time in which it becomes the duty of 
an}' man or set of men on this floor, under pretence of 
national exigencies, to concur in an infrijigement of the 
limits of the Constitution. I trust it is not a time, for a 
member of such a legislature as this, thoughtlessly to 
strengthen hands which already hold powers inconsistent 
with civil liberty, by our surrender of authority, espe- 
cially intrusted to us by the people, into the exclusive 
possession of another department of the government. 

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) alleges 
that the men whom he calls Federalists have, for party 
purposes, represented the embargo as a permanent meas- 
ure. He disclaims such an idea, both on his own 
account and on that of a majority of this House. On this 
head, I am ready to maintain that the embargo law, as 
it was originally passed, was an abuse of the powers 
vested in this branch of the legislature, and, as it has 
been subsequently enforced by supplementary laws, is a 
manifest violation of the Constitution, and an assumption 
of powers vested in the States ; and that, until I have 
some satisfaction on these points, I am not disposed to 
pass a law for raising such an additional military force 
as this bill contemplates. 

Concerning the permanency of the embargo, about 
which so much wire-drawing ingenuity has been exer- 
cised, this I assert, that, so far as relates to the powers 
of this House, the embargo is permanent. That control 
over commerce which the Constitution has vested in us, 
we have transferred to the executive. Whether the 
people shall ever enjoy any commerce again, or whether 
we shall ever have any power in its regulation, depends 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 113 

not upon the will of this House, but upon the will of 
the President and of twelve members of the Senate. 
The manner in which the powers vested in this branch 
of the legislature have been exercised, I hesitate not to 
declare a flagrant abuse of those powers and a violation 
of the most acknowledged safeguards of civil liberty. 

Sir, what is the relation in which this House, in the 
eye of the Constitution, stands to the people ? Is it not 
composed of men emanating from the mass of the com- 
munity ? Are not our interests peculiarly identified with 
theirs ? Is not this the place in which the people have 
a right naturally to look for the strongest struggle for 
our constitutional privileges, and the last surrender of 
them unconditionally to the executive ? Is not the 
power to regulate commerce one of the most important 
of all the trusts reposed in us by the people ? Yet how 
have we exercised this most interesting power ? Why, 
sir, we have so exercised it as not only to annihilate 
commerce for the present, but so as that we can never, 
hereafter, have any commerce to regulate, until the 
President and twelve Senators permit. Gentlemen, 
when pressed upon the constitutional point resulting 
from the permanent nature of this embargo, repel it, as 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) did just now, 
by a broad denial. " It is not permanent," say they. 
" It was never intended to be permanent." Yet it has 
every feature of permanency. It is impossible for terms 
to give it a more unlimited duration. With respect to in- 
tentions, the President and Senate have a right to speak 
on that subject. The}' have a power to- permit 
commerce again to be prosecuted, or to continue its 
prohibition. But what right have we to talk in this 



114 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISIXG 

manner ? I know that we every clay amuse ourselves 
in making some law about commerce. Sir, this is per- 
mitted. It is a part of the delusion which we prac- 
tise upon the peoj)le, and perhaps upon ourselves. 
While engaged in debate, we feel as, if the power to 
regulate commerce was yet in this House. But put this 
matter to the test. Pass a law unanimously to-morrow 
repealing the embargo. Let two-thirds of the Senate 
concur. Let the President and twelve men determine 
not to repeal. I ask, is there any power in this House 
to prevent them from continuing this embargo for ever ? 
The fact is undeniable. Let the President and twelve 
men obstinately persist in adherence to this measure, 
and, in spite of the intentions of this House, the people 
can alone again obtain their commerce by a revolution. 
It follows, from what I have stated, that those may well 
enough talk about what they intend who have the 
power of fulfilling their intentions. But on that sub- 
ject it becomes the members of this House to be silent, 
since that power which we once possessed has by our 
own act departed. So far as this House can ever here- 
after enjoy the opportunity of again regulating com- 
merce, it depends not upon the gift it received from the 
people, but upon the restoration to us of that power 
which, the people having intrusted to our care, we have 
without limitation transferred to the executive. 

Yes, sir. The people 07ice had a commerce. Once 
this House possessed the power to regulate it. Of all 
the grants in the Constitution, perhaps this was most 
highly prized by the people. It was truly the apple 
of their eye. To their concern for it the Constitu- 
tion almost owes its existence. They brought this, the 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 115 

object of their choice affections, and delivered it to tlie 
custody of this House, as a tender parent would deliver 
the hope of his declining years, with a trembling solici- 
tude, to its selected guardians. And how have we con- 
ducted in this sacred trust? Why, delivered it over to 
the care of twelve dry-nurses, concerning whose tem- 
pers we know nothing ; for whose intentions we cannot 
vouch ; and who, for any thing we know, may some of 
them have an interest in destroying it. 

Yes, sir, the people did intrust us with that great 
poAver, — the regulation of commerce. It was their 
most precious jewel. Richer than all the mines of Peru 
and Golconda. But we have sported with it as though 
it Avere common dust. With a thoughtless indifference, 
— in the dead of the night, not under the cover of the 
cheering pinions of our eagle, but under the mortal 
shade of the bat's wing, — we surrendered this rich de- 
posit. It is gone. And we have nothing else to do 
than to beg back, at the footstool of the executive, the 
people's patrimony. Sir, I know the answer which will, 
and it is the only one which can, be given. " There is 
no fear of an improper use of this power by the Pres- 
ident and Senate. There is no danger in trusting 
this most excellent man." Why, sir, this is the very 
slave's gibberish. What other reason could the cross- 
legged Turk or the cringing Parisian give for that 
implicit confidence they yield to their sovereigns, except 
that it is impossible they should abuse their power. 

The state of things I mention does not terminate in 
mere verbal precision or constructive distinctions. The 
very continuance of the measure has, in my opinion, its 
root in the situation which results from this, as I deem 



116 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISING 

it, abuse of our constitutional powers. Does any man 
believe, if the embargo had been originally limited, 
that a bill continuing it could now be passed through 
all the branches? I know that gentlemen who origi- 
nally voted for this embargo, and will probably for the 
enforcement of it, have urged the situation of this 
House, in relation to it, as a reason for farther adher- 
ence. " It is a measure of the executive," say they. 
" Suppose this House should pass a law repeahng it. 
Should he negative, what effect would result but to 
show distracted councils. .In the present situation of 
our countr}^, nothing is so desirable as unanimity." I 
know that, substantially, such arguments have been 
urged. 

[Mr. J. G. Jackson wished the gentleman to name 
the persons to whom he alluded. 

Mr. Quincy said that he did not deem himself bound 
to state names connected with facts by which he had 
acquired the knowledge of particular dispositions in the 
House. It was enough for him to state them, and leave 
the nation to judge if there were, under the circum- 
stances, any thing improbable or unnatural in them. 

Mr. Nicholas called the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts to order. He regretted to say that throughout the 
whole session there had been a total departure from the 
idea which he had of order. When it was attempted to 
palm upon those with whom he acted opinions which 
all must disclaim, he was compelled to object to the dis- 
orderly course pursued. 

Mr. Quincy said that he had no intention to palm 
upon any gentlemen sentiments which they disavowed. 
We did not suppose that the gentlemen who enter- 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 117 

tained such sentiments would disavow them. He said 
he should certainly not mention names. He did not 
think that the argument derived any strength from the 
fact that such expressions had been used by any gen- 
tleman. The}^ are natural and inevitable from the situ- 
ation in which gentlemen are placed in relation to the 
executive. Men willing to take off the embargo, yet 
not willing to counteract the system of the President, 
were necessitated to adopt such reasoning as this. It 
was unavoidable when they came to reflect upon the 
powers which remained to this House in relation to the 
repeal of this law. 

Mil. Nicholas required that the gentleman should 
observe order. 

Mr. G. W. Campbell said that, as the gentleman had 
made a reflection on members in the majority, he must 
be permitted to observe that he utterly disclaimed any 
such opinion as the gentleman had charged indiscrimi- 
nately upon the majority. 

Mr. Quincy said that he had made no such indis- 
criminate charge on the majority. An attempt had 
been made to give the discussion a turn which he 
neither anticipated nor intended. I understand, said 
Mr. Quincy, the cause of this interruption. It is not 
the fact intimated, but the force of the argument stated, 
which startles gentlemen from their seats. They like 
not to hear the truth elucidated concerning their abuse 
of power intrusted to them by the people. In reply to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes), who alleged 
that for party purposes the embargo had been repre- 
sented permanent, I undertook to show that, as far as 
respects this House, it was to all intents permanent. 
This is the insupportable position. The embargo — 



118 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISING 

Mr. J. G. Jackson called Mr. Quincy to order. This 
disorder, he said, had progressed too long. There had 
not only been disorder on the floor of the House, but in 
the galleries, and from British subjects too, Avhich had 
interrupted the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes), 
whilst he had been speaking a few moments ago. It 
was not in order to discuss the subject of embargo on 
this question. Every thing which presented itself to 
the House was made a question of embargo. It was 
the watchword of the day. 

The Speaker requested Mr. Quincy to take his seat, 
and asked Mr. Jackson to put down in writing the 
words to which he objected. 

Mr. Jackson said he could not specify particular 
words to which he had objected, unless, indeed, he were 
to include the gentleman's whole speech. He wished, 
however, to know of the Speaker, is it in order, on a 
question for raising volunteer troops, to discuss the 
constitutionality of the embargo ? 

The Speaker observed that a very wide range had 
been taken in debate, and that, excluding personal mat- 
ter, the gentleman was in order to reply to observations 
of other gentlemen. 

Mr. Quincy said that he had been drawn unexpect- 
edly into this course of debate by following the gentle- 
man from Virginia (Mr. Eppes). He said that he 
wished to lay before the House and the nation — 

Mr. Eppes said that he had said nothing concerning 
the supplementary embargo law, now before the House, 
which he conceived the gentleman was about to intro- 
duce into the discussion. He hoped the gentleman 
would suspend his observations upon the subject until 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 110 

it came before the House, when, notwithstanding all 
the clamor on the subject, it would be found that there 
was not a provision contained in it which was not to 
be found in the present revenue laws. 

Mr. Quincy said he was not about to bring the sup- 
plementary embargo bill into debate. The gentleman 
had asserted that the embargo law was not permanent ; 
that the Constitution had not been violated. He had 
taken the gentleman upon that ground. And the course 
of his observations had been to prove that the embargo 
was permanent, so far as respected the powers of this 
House to repeal, and that the Constitution had been 
violated. 

Mr. Eppes said that he had not said that the Consti- 
tution had not been violated. 

Mr. Quincy said that he had no particular inclina- 
tion to speak at that moment, and if gentlemen did not 
wish to hear — 

Mr. Eppes said he had no objection to hear the gen- 
tleman state any violations of the Constitution, and he 
should take the privilege of a member to answer them, 
if they were plausible. 

Mr. Masters made some observations upon the point 
of order ; and, as the House was rather in a state of 
agitation, moved to adjourn. Mr. Quinc}^ having given 
Avay for the purpose, — negatived ; ayes, 22.] 

Notwithstanding all the interruptions I have experi- 
enced, my observations have been perfectly in order. 
The reason I am opposed to the resolution is, that the 
force proposed to be raised is, in my opinion, intended 
not to meet a foreign enemy, but to enforce the embargo 
laws. Now is it not the most pertinent and strongest 



120 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOE EAISING 

of all arguments against the adoption of such a resolu- 
tion, to prove that the powers of the executive, in these 
respects, already transcend the limits of the Constitu- 
tion, and that these laws proposed thus to be enforced 
are open violations of it ? Considering, however, the 
temper of the House, I shall limit myself to the state- 
ment and elucidation of a single position. And the 
argument I shall offer will be only in outline. I will 
not enter into the wide field which the greatness of the 
question naturally opens. I know that, as soon as my 
position is stated, gentlemen advocating the present 
measures will be ready to exclaim, It is a small objec- 
tion! But I warn gentlemen that, small as it may 
appear to them, if the principle receive the sanction of 
the people and the support of the State legislatures, 
there is an end of this destructive system of embargo. 

The position I take, and which I mean to maintain is, 
that those provisions of tliQ embargo laws which assume 
to regulate the coasting trade, between ports and ports 
of the same State, are gross invasions of the rights of 
the States, and palpable grasps of power beyond the 
limits of the Constitution. I ask the attention of the 
House to a very short argument upon this subject. I 
present it, not by way of crimination, but as worthy of 
its consideration and candid examination.' I feel no 
passions on the question. If any have been exhibited 
by me, they were caught at the flame enkindled by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes). 

The powers granted to Congress, in relation to com- 
merce, are contained in the eighth section of the first 
article of the Constitution, in these words : " The Con- 
gress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 121 

nations, and among the several States, and with the 
Indian tribes." The particular power to whicli I object, 
as being assumed, if granted at all, is contained within 
the terms, " commerce among the several States." In 
reference to which I ask this question : Can the grant of 
a power to regulate commerce among the States, by any- 
fair construction, be made to include a power to regu- 
late commerce within a State? It is a simple question. 
The strength and certainty of the conclusion results 
from its simplicity. There is no need of any refined 
argument to arrive at conviction. It is a plain appeal 
to the common-sense of the people, — to that common- 
sense which, on most practical subjects, is a much surer 
guide than all the reasoning of the learned. It is scarce 
possible, there can be but one answer to this question. 
To bring the subject more directly into the course of 
the reasonings of common life, suppose that ten house- 
holders who live in a neighborhood should agree upon 
a tribunal which should possess powers to regulate 
commerce or intercourse among their houses, could 
such an authority be fairly extended to the regulation 
of the intercourse of the members of their families 
within their respective houses ? Under a grant of 
power like this, would such a tribunal have a right to 
regulate the intercourse between room and room within 
each dwelling-house ? It is impossible. Nothing can 
be plainer. The general government has no color for 
interfering with the interior commerce of each State, 
let it be carried on by water or by land. The regula- 
tion of the commerce between ports and ports of the 
same State belongs exclusively to the States respec- 
tively. 



122 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 

In farther support of this position, a strong argument 
results from the ninth section of the first article : " No 
tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any 
State. No preference shall be given by any regulation 
of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over 
those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one 
State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in an- 
other." In this clause of the Constitution, the people 
restrict the general power over commerce granted to 
Congress. And to what objects do these restrictions 
apply ? To exports from a State ; to preferences of 
the ports of one State over those of another ; to ves- 
sels bound to or from another State. Not one word 
of restriction of the powers of Congress touching that 
great portion of commerce between ports and ports of 
the same State. Now. can any thing. be more conclusive 
that the general power of regulating commerce did not, 
in the opinion of the people, include the right to regu- 
late commerce between ports and ports of the same 
State than this fact, that they have not thought it nec- 
essary even to enumerate it among these restrictions ? 
If it were included in the grant of the general power, 
can a reason be shown why it was not, as well as the 
others, included within these restrictions ? That it is 
not provided for among these restrictions is perfect con- 
viction, to my mind, that it was never included in the 
general power. A contrary doctrine leads to this mon- 
strous absurdity, that Congress, which, in consequence 
of these constitutional restrictions, can neither grant 
any preference to the ports of one State over those of 
another State, nor oblige vessels to enter, clear, or pay 
duties when bound to or from the ports of one State in 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 123 

another, yet that it may grant preferences to the ports 
of one State over ports in the same State, and may obUge 
vessels to enter, clear, and pay duties when bound from 
port to port within the same State. This enormous 
consequence is inevitable. The conclusion, therefore, 
to my mind, is perfectly clear, that the reason why the 
peojile did not restrict the abuse of this species of power 
was, that the power itself was not granted to Congress. 
I shall state only one other corroborative argument, 
drawn from another part of the Constitution. By the 
second clause of the tenth section and first article, it is 
provided that " no State shall, without the consent of 
Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or ex- 
ports, except what may be absolutely necessary for 
executing its inspection laws, &c. Now can it for one 
moment be admitted that, in consequence of this restric- 
tion, the individual States are prohibited from laying 
transit duties on articles passing from port to port 
within their State limits ? Can the States lay no toll 
upon ferries across their rivers ? no tax upon vessels 
plying up and down their rivers, or across their bays ? 
May not the State of New York impose a duty upon 
vessels going from Hudson or Albany to New York ? 
Yet, if it be true that the general power of regulating 
commerce among the States includes the power of regu- 
lating commerce between ports and ports of the same 
State, all this great branch of State prerogative is abso- 
lutely gone from the individual States, — a construction 
of the Constitution in which, if realized by the people 
and the legislature of the States in all its consequences, 
they never can acquiesce. The language of this clause 



124 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 

is in strict consonance with that construction of the 
Constitution for which I contend. It strongly, and con- 
chisively to my mind, implies that the general power 
does not include the power to regulate commerce be- 
tween ports and ports of the same State. The language 
of this clause is, " no State shall lay any imposts or 
duties on imports or exports." These terms " imports 
and exports " are exclusively appropriate to duties upon 
goods passing into a State or passing out of a State, and 
can never be made, by any fair construction, to extend 
to duties upon goods passing wholly within the limits of 
a State. On goods in this situation, — that is, on goods 
passing between ports and ports of the same State, — the 
individual States have, notwithstanding this restriction 
in the Constitution, the power to lay transit duties. Of 
consequence, the regulation of this branch of trade is not 
included in the grant to Congress of the general power 
over commerce among the States. 

This is the point of view which I take in this matter, 
of the limits of the Constitution. On this ground it is, 
that I asserted that the rights of the States have been 
invaded in your embargo laws, and that this legislature 
has grasped a power not given to it by the Constitution. 
And, so far as the liberties of this people are dependent 
upon the preservation of the State and national authori- 
ties in their respective orbits, I hesitate not to declare 
the embargo laws a manifest infringement of those lib- 
erties. 

On a question of this magnitude, I cannot condescend 
to inquire whether, in the early revenue laws, any reg- 
ulations were made affecting this particular branch of 



FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 125 

trade. A practice in direct violation of the Consti- 
tution can have no binding force. Violations of the 
Constitution touching only a few solitary individuals, 
small in amount or in inconvenience, may for a long 
period be submitted to without a struggle or a murmur. 
When the extension of the principle begins to affect 
whole classes of the community, the interest of the 
nation claims a solemn and satisfactory decision. The 
truth is, I can find but a single attempt in all your rev- 
enue laws contrary to the construction for which I 
contend. In the case of carrying distilled spirits, or 
imported goods of a specified amount, from port to port 
within a State, the master is obliged to make a manifest 
and take an oath that the duties have been paid. The 
infringement of the Constitution was in this instance, 
and in its immediate consequences, so trifling that it has 
passed without notice, and been submitted to without a 
question. But, surely, on the silent acquiescence of 
the people in such a practice as this can never be built 
the fabric of so enormous a power as your embargo laws 
attempt to exercise. 

Gentlemen say the embargo is brought into view on 
all occasions. Certainly, sir, it is connected with almost 
all national questions. I have no objection to voting 
for fifty thousand men, if I can be informed to what use 
they are to be applied. Let me only understand the 
system proposed. Is it intended to repeal the embargo 
and go to war? Or are these men only intended to 
enforce it ? If the former, I have no objection to any 
requisite army. If the latter, I am in dirct hostility to 
this proposition. Deeming the embargo laws unconsti- 



126 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING, ETC. 

tutional, and powers vested in the executive which 
ought never to have passed out of the possession of this 
House, I will never acquiesce in augmentation of the 
military until I am satisfied that the system is not to 
support by it still farther the violations of this Consti- 
tution. 



1 



SPEECH 



ON THE BILL FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SES- 
SION OF CONGRESS IN MAY NEXT. 

Jan. 19, 1809. 



SPEECH 

ox THE BILL FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION OF 
CONGRESS IN MAY NEXT. 

Jan. 19, 1809. 



[The discontents caused by the embargo had grown so fierce 
that the Democrats themselves had become alarmed by them. 
The Northern public men, who had stood by Mr. Jefferson in his 
favorite policy of conquering England through the ruin of Amer- 
ican commerce, began, towards the close of his administration, to 
tremble for themselves, if not for their country. He still re- 
mained firm in his faith, and saw with grief the appi'oaching 
defection of his followers. Even sight could not shake his faith. 
After the first disturbance of trade arising from an embargo was 
past, the English merchants, far from asking for the restoi'ation 
of American commerce through the repeal of the Orders in 
Council, wished them to be made more rigid yet, so that they them- 
selves might have the monopoly of the continental trade ; thus 
literally fulfilling Mr. Quincy's proi^hecy at the time the em- 
bargo was first proposed. The importation of cotton into Eng- 
land was first absolutely prohibited, in order to cripple the 
manufacturing of the continent, which Bonaparte wished to 
establish as a part of his system. Then, as the Democratic ora- 
tors and presses denounced the duty which England demanded 
for the privilege of re-exportation to the continent, as a tribute 
to that haughty power, the British government removed this 
particular ground of complaint by forbidding any importation 
whatever from America for the purpose of reshipment. And 

9 



130 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

Mr. Canning called the particular attention of the American 
government, through Mr. Pinkuey, its representative, " to this 
concession to the sensibilities of the American people" ! 

Mr. Jefferson's reign was drawing to a close, and the alle- 
giance of his partisans naturally grew weaker and weaker ; and 
during the short session of 1808-9, previous to the accession of 
Mr. Madison, the unquestioning obedience of the Democratic 
majority in Congress to the behests of Mr. Jefferson was greatly 
though secretly shaken. The New England and New York 
members showed strong symptoms of rebellion, which Mr. Jeffer- 
son attiibuted to "an unaccountable revolution of opinion and 
kind of panic " among them. The revolution in opinion and the 
panic grew out of their observation of the effects of the embargo 
on the interests of their constituents and their apprehensions of 
its influence at the polls. In this state of things, an extra ses- 
sion of Congress was proposed, in May, 1809, by way of pacify- 
ing the growing discontent under the embargo with the prospect 
of its removal, but with the additional pretence that the time 
would then have arrived for substituting an open war for that 
by commercial restrictions. It was on this bill that Mi\ Quincy 
niatie the- following speech, which caused a great excitement in 
the House, and made a strong impression on the country. — Ed.] 

Mr. Speaker, — If the bill under consideration had 
no other aspect on the fates of this country than its 
terms indicate, I shoukl have continued silent. If the 
question upon it involved no other consequences than 
those of personal inconvenience to us and of expense to 
the public, I would not now ask the indulgence of the 
House. But I deem this bill to be a materially com- 
ponent part of that system of commercial restriction 
under which the best hopes of this nation are oppressed. 
I consider this measure as intended to induce this peo- 
ple still longer to endure patiently the embargo, and all 
the e\ils which it brings in its train, by exciting and 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 131 

fostering in them delusive expectations. A great crisis 
is, to all Iiuman appearance, advancing upon our coun- 
tr3\ Gentlemen may attempt to conceal it from the 
nation, perhajDS from themselves, but every step they 
take has an influence upon that crisis ; and, small as they 
may deem the decision on this bill, in its effects it will 
be among the most important of any of the acts of this 
session. 

It is very painful to me, Mr. Speaker, to be compelled 
to place my opposition to this bill on ground resulting 
from the conduct of the administration of this nation. 
I say, sir, this is very painful to me, because I have no 
personal animosity to any individual of that administra- 
tion. Nor, if I know myself, am I induced to this oppo- 
sition from any party motive. But, sir, acting in a 
public capacity, and reasoning concerning events as 
they occur, with reference to the high duties of my 
station, I shall not, when I arrive in my conception at 
a just conclusion, shrink from any projDcr responsibility 
in spreading that conclusion before this House and 
nation. One thing I shall hope and certainly shall 
deserve from the friends of administration, — the ac- 
knowledgment that I shall aim no insidious bloAv. It 
shall be made openly, distinctly, in the daylight. Be 
it strong or be it weak, I invite those friends to parry 
it. If they are successful, I shall rejoice in it not less 
than they. 

This is the position in relation to the conduct of ad- 
ministration which I take, and on which I rest my 
opposition to this bill : that this House, when it passed 
the embargo law. was under a deception touching the 
motives of administration in recommending that raeas- 



132 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

ure ; that it has been, in adopting that measure, instru- 
mental in deceiving this people as to the motives which 
induced that law ; that if it passes this bill it will again 
act under a deception touching those motives, and again 
be instrumental, unwarily and unwillingly, as I believe, 
in deceiving this people in relation to them. I think I 
have stated my ground of opposition so clearly as to 
admit of no misconception, and invite gentlemen to 
meet me candidly upon it. When I speak of deception, 
I beg gentlemen not to misunderstand me. I will be as 
just to the administration as I mean to be true and fear- 
less in the performance of my duty to the people. By 
this term, I do not mean any moral obliquity, any direct 
falsehood or palpable misrepresentation. But I intend 
by it political deception, — that species of cunning, not 
uncommon among politicians, which Lord Bacon calls 
" left-handed wisdom." This is exhibited when osten- 
sible and popular motives are presented as inducements 
to a particular line of conduct, and the real and critical 
ones are kept behind the curtain. This is practised 
when those who have obtained an influence over others 
troll them by the means of fair promises upon trundles 
in a downhill path, and so are enabled gradually to 
shove them, by gentle motions, farther than at first they 
had any intention to go. We witness this sjjecies of 
political deception when we see men meshed in the 
toils of a complicated policy, and then dragged whither- 
soever their leaders will, through sheer shame at break- 
ing the cords of that net in which they have suffered 
themselves incautiously to be entangled. 

In support of my first position, — that this House, 
when it passed the embargo law, was under a deception 



FOE HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 133 

touching the motives of administration, — I shall ask 
the House to recollect, as far as possible, all the motives 
which induced it to pass the embargo law, and then I 
will attempt to show that the motives of administration 
were different, in kind or in degree, from those which 
operated on this floor. I will recapitulate them as dis- 
tinctly as possible, excluding no one which I have any 
reason to think had an influence in the House, imput- 
ing none which did not exist. One motive was the pres- 
ervation of our resources ; that is, the saving of our 
seamen and navigation. This was the ostensible and 
popular motive, — that avowed by administration. An- 
other motive was, that many thought war was inevitable, 
and that embargo would give an opportunity to prepare 
for it. Again : some thought that it would have a 
good effect on the negotiation then daily expected, and 
frighten Mr. Rose. Again : others supposed that it 
would straiten Great Britain at a moment the most 
favorable to make her feel the importance of the United 
States. The system of commercial pressure was in full 
operation in Europe ; and, should this country complete 
the circle of compression, they thought that it would 
be impossible for her not to yield to our pretensions. 
Again : some thought that the French emperor was con- 
tending for maritime rights, and that it was time for us 
to co-operate. [Here Messrs. Smilie and Eppes required 
of Mr. Quincy to know to whom he had allusion.] I 
am surprised, said Mr. Quincy, to hear that question 
asked by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If, how- 
ever, it be denied as a motive, I have no objection to 
withdraw it. What I am now doing ought to excite no 
passion. I am not about to question the motives of this 



134 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

House. I am only recapitulating all those which there 
is any reason to believe existed. If any gentlemen say 
a particular one did not exist, for the present argument 
I reject it. My present object only is to be complete in 
my enumeration, in order to make more forcible the 
bearing of my princij)al argument, that it does not 
include those which principally had an influence with 
administration in recommending the measure. I do not 
recollect but two other motives besides those already 
mentioned. Some voted for this embargo, because they 
thought this House ought to do something, and they 
did not know what else to do. Others intimated that 
it might have an effect to injure France in the few 
West India possessions which remained to her. But 
this was urged so faintly, and with such little show of 
reason, that I doubt if it were an influential motive 
with any man. The preceding enumeration includes 
all the motives, as I believe, either urged on this floor, 
or in any way silently operative in producing that 
measure. Now I do not think I state my position too 
strongly when I say that not a man in this House 
deemed the embargo intended chiefly as a measure of 
coercion on Great Britain ; that it was to be made per- 
manent at all hazards, until it had effected that object ; 
and that nothing else effectual was to be done for the 
support of our maritime rights. If any individual was 
influenced by such motives, certainly they were not 
those of a majority of this House. Now, sir, on my 
conscience, I do believe that these were the motives 
and intentions of administration when they recom- 
mended the embargo to the adoption of this House. 
Sir, I believe these continue to be still their motives and 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 135 

intentions. And if this were fairly understood by the 
l^eople to be the fact, I do not believe that they would 
countenance the continuance of such an oppressive 
measure for such a purpose without better assurance 
than has ever yet been given to them, that, by adher- 
ence to this policy, the great and real object of it will 
be effected. 

The proposition which I undertake to maintain con- 
sists of three particulars : first, that it was and is the 
intention of administration to coerce Great Britain by 
the embargo, and that this, and not precaution, is and- 
was the principal object of the policy ; second, tliat it 
was and is intended to persevere in this measure until 
it effect, if possible, the proposed object ; third, that 
it was and is the intention of administration to do 
nothing else effectual in support of our maritime rights. 

Having in my own mind a perfect conviction of the 
truth of every one of these propositions, I should be 
false to myself and to my country at such a crisis as 
this if I did not state that conviction to this House, and 
through it to my fellow-citizens. I shall not, however, 
take refuge in mere declaration of individual opinion, or 
content myself simply with assertions. I shall state the 
grounds and the reasonings by which I arrive at this re- 
sult. I invite gentlemen to reply to them in the spirit 
in which they are offered, not with the design of awak- 
ening any personal or party passion, but to fulfil the 
high duties which, according to my apprehension of 
them, I owe to this people. 

When we attempt to penetrate into the intentions of 
men, we are all sensible how thick and mysterious is 
that veil which, by the law of our nature, is spread over 



136 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

them. At times it is scarcely permitted to an individual 
to be absolutely certain of his own motives. But when 
the question is concerning the purposes of others, ex- 
perience daily tells how hard a task it is to descend into 
the hidden recesses of the mind, and pluck intentions 
from that granite cell in which they delight to incrust 
themselves. The only mode of discovery is to consider 
language and conduct in their relation to the real and 
avowed object, and thence to conclude, as fairly as we 
can, Avhich is the one and which the other. This course 
I shall ado]3t. If there be any thing fallacious, let the 
friends of administration oppose it. 

When I state that precaution was not, but that coer- 
cion on Great Britain was, the principal motive with 
administration in advising the embargo, I do not mean 
to aver that precaution did not enter into the view, but 
only that it was a minor consideration, and did by no 
means bear so great a proportion in producing that 
policy in the cabinet as it did before the world. This 
will appear presently. That the principal object of 
the embargo policy was coercion on Great Britain, I 
conclude from the language of the friends of adminis- 
tration in this country and the language which the min- 
ister of administration was directed to hold across the 
Atlantic, as also from their subsequent conduct. Here 
all the leading calculations had relation to coercion. 
The dependence of Great Britain upon her manufac- 
tures, and their dependence upon us for supply and 
consumption ; the greatness of her debt ; her solitary 
state, engaged with a world in arras ; the fortunes and 
the power of the French emperor ; the certain effect of 
the commercial prohibitions of combined Europe upon 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 137 

her maritime power, — such were the uniform consider- 
ations in support of this policy adduced by the friends of 
administration on this floor or in this nation. 

There, on the contrary, the considerations urged as 
the motive for it were altogether different. Let us 
recur to the language which our minister was directed 
to hold to the court of Great Britain on this subject. 
The Secretary of State, in his letter of the 23d of 
December, 1807, to Mr. Pinkney, thus dictates to him 
the course he is to pursue in impressing on the British 
cabinet the objects of the embargo : " I avail myself of 
the opportunity to enclose you a copy of a message from 
the President to Congress, and their act, in pursuance 
of it, laying an embargo on our vessels and exports. 
The policy and causes of the measure are explained in 
the message itself. But it may be proper to authorize 
you to assure the British government, as has been just 
expressed to its minister here, that the act is a measure 
of precaution only, called for by the occasion ; that it is 
to be considered as neither hostile in its character, nor 
as justifying or inviting or leading to hostility with 
any nation whatever, and particularly as opposing no 
obstacle whatever to amicable negotiations and satis- 
factory adjustments with Great Britain on the subjects 
of difference between the two countries." Here our 
administration expressly declare that " the policy and 
causes of the measure are explained in the message 
itself." And in that message the " dangers with which 
our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise are threat- 
ened ; " and " the great importance of keeping in safety 
these essential resources," — are the sole causes enumer- 
ated as explanatory of that policy. At the court of 



138 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

Great Britain, then, our minister was directed to repre- 
sent this measure as merely intended to save our essen- 
tial resources. But administration were not content 
with the direct assertion of this motive : they abjure any 
other. They expressly direct our minister " to assure 
the British government that the act is a measure of 
precaution only," and " that it opposes no obstacle 
whatever to amicable negotiations between the two 
countries." Here, then, the friends of administration, 
speaking, as is well known, its language allege in this 
country that the embargo is a measure of coercion, and 
that, if persisted in vigorously, it will reduce Great 
Britain to our terms ; whereas the minister of the United 
States, speaking also the language of administration, 
is directed, unequivocally, to deny all this in Great 
Britain, and to exclude the idea of coercion by declar- 
ing it to be a measure of precaution only. Certainly, 
never was there a policy more perfectly characteristic. 
It is precisely that policy which one deeply skilled in 
the knowledge of the human character described as " a 
language official and a language confidential," — a lan- 
guage for the ear of the American people, an opposite 
for the ear of the British cabinet. If this had been, as 
the minister of the United States was directed to assure 
the British cabinet, " a measure of precaution only," 
why were the friends of administration permitted to 
advocate it as a measure of coercion ? Why is it 
continued after all pretence of precaution has ceased ? 
Did not administration know that, if it were supported 
here on the ground of coercion, this fact would neces- 
sarily be understood in Great Britain, and that it must 
form " an obstacle to negotiation," notwithstanding 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 139 

all their declarations ? If, therefore, it had been truly 
" a measure of precaution only," would not admin- 
istration have been the first to have counteracted 
such an opinion, and not permitted it to have gained 
any ground here or elsewhere ? Yet they countenance 
this opinion in America at the moment they are denying 
it in Great Britain. And wh}- ? The reason is obvious, 
and is conclusive in support of the position that it was 
at first, as it is now, simply a measure of coercion. The 
mode adopted by administration is the only one they 
could adopt with any hope of success in case the object 
was coercion, and the very mode they would avoid had 
it been really precaution. There is not an individual in 
the United States so much of a child as not to know 
that the argument of precaution was good only for 
ninety, or, at farthest, an hundred and twenty days. 
After our ships and seamen were in port, which within 
that time would have been principally the case, the rea- 
son of precaution was at an end. Upon the principle 
that the self-interest and intelligence of the merchant 
and navigator are the best guides and patrons of their 
own concerns, and that the stake which society has in 
the property of the citizen is better secured by his own 
knowledge and activity than by any general regula- 
tions whatsoever, it was necessary, therefore, in the 
United States, to resort early to the idea of coercion, 
and to press it vigorously : otherwise the people of 
America could not be induced to endurance beyond the 
time when the reason of precaution had ceased. In 
America, therefore, it was coercion. But in Great 
Britain the state of things was altogether the reverse. 
Administration knew perfectly well, not only from the 



140 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

character of the British nation, but also from the most 
common principles of human nature, that once present 
this embargo to it as a measure of coercion, to compel 
it to adopt or retract any principle of adopted policy, 
and there was an end of negotiation. It would have 
been like laying a drawn sword upon the table, and 
declaring, " Yield us what we demand, or we will push 
it to the hilt into j^our vitals." In such case, it was 
perfectly apparent that there could be received from an 
independent nation but one answer. " Take awa}^ 3''0ur 
sword ; withdraw your menace : while these continue 
we listen to nothing. Aware of this inevitable conse- 
quence, administration not only aver that it is precau- 
tion, but even condescend to deny it is any thing else, 
by declaring that it is this, and this only. Thus in 
Great Britain precaution was the veil under which a 
sword was passed into her side. But in the United 
States coercion was the palatable liquor wdth which 
administration softened and gargled the passage, while 
it thrust, at the point of the bayonet, the bitter pill of 
embargo down the throats of the American people. It 
is this variation of the avowed motive to suit the un- 
questionable diversity of the state of things in this 
country and Great Britain, combined with the fact that 
the embargo is continued long after the plea of precau- 
tion has ceased to be effectual, that produces a perfect 
conviction in my mind that precaution was little more 
than the pretext, and that coercion was in fact the prin- 
cipal purpose, of the policy. Indeed, how is it possible 
to conclude otherwise when the very mode of argu- 
ment adopted in each country was the only one which 
could have made coercion successful, and the very one 



FOB, HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 141 

which would have been avoided if precaution had been 
the real and only motive ? I cheerfully submit the cor- 
rectness of this conclusion to the consideration of the 
people. 

I come now to my second proposition, — that it was 
the intention of administration to persevere in this 
measure of embargo until it should effect, if possible, 
the proposed object, and, as I believe, at all hazard. 
The evidence of this intention I gather not only from the 
subsequent perseverance in this system, in spite of the 
cries of distress heard in one quarter of the Union, 
and the dangers not to be concealed resulting from an 
adherence to it, but from the very tenor of the law, 
from its original form and feature. If this had been, as 
it was asserted by administration, originally a measure 
of precaution only, there was every reason why it 
should be limited, and none why its duration should be 
unlimited. A limited embargo was conformable to prec- 
edent in this country. It was conformable to practice 
in others. There was less question of its constitution- 
ality ; and, certainly, much less reason to be jealous of 
it as a transfer of power to the executive. The ques- 
tion of precaution having reference to the interests of 
the merchant, and of the other classes of the commu- 
nity, was naturally one which the members of this House, 
emanating directly from the people, were best qualified 
to decide, and was the last which they ought or would, 
in such case, have submitted to the entire control of 
another branch of the legislature. But as, notwith- 
standing assertions, it was in fact a measure of coercion, 
a very different principle operated in its formation. It 
was to be used as a weapon against Great Britain. If 



142 SPEECH ON THE BH^L 

drawn against her, it was necessary to be put into such 
a situation as most certainly to effect its purpose. If 
drawn, it was not to be sheathed, until this had been 
done, or until it had reached the marrow and the vitals 
of the enemy. But, with such a purpose, a limited 
embargo would have been a nerveless weapon. At 
every term of its limitation, it would have been under 
the control of this House ; a body deeply responsible to 
the people, liable intimately to be affected by their feel- 
ings and passions. These would have instantly operated 
upon this House, which never could have been brought 
to continue the measure one moment longer than it was 
for the interest and consentaneous to the wishes of the 
mass of their fellow-citizens. But if the intention was 
to keep if possible these restrictions upon the people, 
until they effected their object at all hazards, then no 
other course could be adopted but that of unlimited 
embargo. The whole commercial power given to us by 
the Constitution was thus transferred absolutely to the 
President and twelve men in the other branch of the 
legislature,^ — men, from their situation and their tenure 
of office, not so likely to be affected by the interests of 
the people, or so able to sympathize with them, as the 
members of this House. If it were intended, then, to 
keep this instrument of coercion aloof from the influ- 
ence of the people, so that it might be maintained long 
after they had ceased to approve of it, this was the only 
course which could be adopted. This House could not 
be trusted with the power of re-enacting it. The 
weapon would be shortened and weakened, if it re- 

1 Twelve senators held the balance of power in the Senate, who could 
be depended upon to support the administration. 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 143 

mained in our control. But, in the exclusive possession 
of the President and twelve men, its whole force might 
be wielded with the greatest ' possible efficacy. It is 
from this feature of the embargo law, reconcilable to no 
other intention than a predetermination to persevere in it 
regardless of the people's sufferings until it had effected, 
if possible, its object, as well as from the actual obstinacy 
of adherence after the most manifest symptoms of dis- 
content in the commercial States, that I draw the con- 
clusion that such was the original determination of 
administration. And not only so, but I am perfectly of 
opinion that such is still their intention, and that, if the 
people will bear it, this embargo will be continued not 
only until next May, but until next September; yes, 
sir, to next May twelvemonth. Having this convic- 
tion, a sense of duty obliges me to declare it, and thus 
to state the reasons of it. 

I come now to my third position, — not only that 
embargo was resorted to as a means of coercion ; but 
that, from the first, it was never intended by adminis- 
tration to do any thing else effectual for the support of 
our maritime rights. Sir, I am sick, sick to loathing, of 
this eternal clamor of " war, war, war," which has 
been kept up almost incessantly on this floor, now for 
more than two years, sir. If I can help it, the old 
women of this country shall not be frightened in this 
way any longer. I have been a long time a close ob- 
server of what has been done and said by the majority of 
this House ; and, for one, I am satisfied that no insult, 
however gross, offered to us by either France or Great 
Britain, could force this majority into the declaration of 
war. To use a strong but common expression, it could 



144 SPEECH ON THE BH^L 

not be kicked into such a declaration by either nation. 
Letters are read from the British minister. Passions 
are excited bj his sarcasms. Men get up and recapitu- 
late insults. They rise and exclaim "perfidy," "rob- 
bery," " falsehood," " murder " ! 

..." Unpacking hearts with words, 
And fall a cursing, like a very drab, 
A scullion." 

Sir, is this the way to maintain national honor or 
dignity ? Is it the way to respect abroad or at home ? 
Is the perpetual recapitulation of wrongs the ready path 
to redress, or even the means to keep alive a just sense 
of them in our minds ? Are those sensibilities likely to 
remain for a long time very keen which are kept con- 
stantly under the lash of the tongue ? 

The grounds on which I conclude that it was the 
intention of administration to do nothing else effectual, 
in support of our maritime rights, are these, that, if it 
had ever been contemplated to fight for them, less would 
have been said about war, and more pre23aration made 
for it. The observation is common and just as true of 
collective bodies of men as of individuals, that those 
fight the best who make the least noise upon the sub- 
ject. The man of determined character shows his 
strength in his muscles, in the attitude he assumes, in 
the dignified position in which he places himself. Just 
so is it with men determined to maintain the rights and 
honor of the nation. They consider the nature of the 
exigency, the power of the nation with which they are 
likely to involve their country, what preparations are 
necessary to its ultimate success. They do not content 



J 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 145 

themselves witli evaporating words of passion. They 
look to the end, and devise and put in train such means 
as are suited to a safe and honorable issue. This con- 
duct speaks more terribly than any words to the fears of 
foreign nations. And as to our citizens, they find in it 
an assurance, which can be given them by no enumera- 
tion of wrongs, however accurate or eloquent. But it 
is not merely by what has been said, but by what has 
been done, that my mind is satisfied that administration 
never seriously contemplated a war with any nation 
under heaven. That all this clamor so ostentatiously 
raised, and all this detail of the horrors of war, are 
nothing else than the machinery by which it is intended 
to keep this people quiet, through apprehension of a 
worse state, under their most oppressive evil, the em- 
bargo. We have been told from divine authority, " By 
their deeds ye shall know them." The rule is just as 
true in relation to professors in politics as to professors 
in religion. I ask, sir, what has this majority done, 
during the two years past, in every moment of which 
the people have been kept under almost a daily antici- 
pation of war, towards an effectual maintenance of their 
rights, should war in fact result ? Why, we have built 
seventy gunboats ; we have in requisition one hundred 
thousand militia. Are either of these intended to fight 
Great Britain ? or competent to maintain our maritime 
rights ? But we have an army of five thousand men. 
And how have you appointed officers to that army ? 
Have you done it in a manner to create that sentiment 
of unanimity so necessary to be inspired, if your inten- 
tion be to fight seriously a foreign enemy ? In the last 
session, when the proposal to raise that army was before 

10 



146 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

the House, no cry was so universal as that of " Union." 
Well, sir, and how did those gentlemen whose senti- 
ments usually coincide with mine act upon that occa- 
sion ? Did we make a party question of it ? No : it 
was supported very generally by us. Now, upon what 
princijile have you conducted in your appointment of 
officers to that army? as though you wished to unite 
every heart and hand in the nation in opposition to a 
foreign enemy ? No : but as though you had no other 
project than to reward political adherents or to enforce 
the embargo laws. I mean not unjustly to charge any 
member of the administration. But I am obliged to 
state that I have satisfactory evidence to my mind that 
it has been established as a principle by the Secretary'- 
at War not to apjDoint any man to a command in that 
army who was not an open partisan of the existing 
administration. If I am in an error, appoint a committee 
of inquiry ; and I will be the happiest, if it be proved, to 
acknowledge it. [Mr. Love asked if Mr. Quincy was 
in order. Mr. Speaker conceived he was not.] Mr. 
Quincy continued : I am performing what I deem a great 
duty ; and, if the connection between this topic and the 
subject before the House be denied, I am prepared to 
establish it. I am contending that if the purpose for 
which this army was raised were to meet a foreign 
enemy, this principle would never have been adopted in 
the appointment of officers. I do not believe the fact I 
state will be denied. But if it should be, it is easily to be 
ascertained by comparing the applications for appoint- 
ments to those offices with the list of those appointments. 
Now, sir, if the intention were to unite the nation as 
one man against a foreign enemy, is not this the last 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 147 

policy Avliich any administration ought ever to have 
adopted ? Of all engines, is not a party army the most 
dreadful and detestable ? Is it not the most likely to 
awaken suspicion, and to sow discontent rather tlian 
concord ? This is one reason on which I rest my opinion, 
that it was not the intention to go to war, or they would 
have adopted a principle more harmonizing in relation 
to the organization of that army. 

Again, sir, you talk of going to war against Great 
Britain with, I believe, only one frigate and five sloops- 
of-war in commission ! And yet you have not the reso- 
lution to meet the expense of the paltry little navy 
which is rotting in the Potomac ! Already we have 
heard it rung on this floor that if we fit out that little 
nav}^ our treasury will be emptied. If you had ever a 
serious intention of going to war, would you have frit- 
tered down the resources of this nation in the manner 
we witness ? you go to war, with all the revenue to be 
derived from commerce annihilated, and possessing no 
other resource than loans, or direct or other internal 
taxes ! you, a party that rose into power by declaim- 
ing against direct taxes and loans ! Do you hope to 
make the people of this country, much more foreign 
nations, believe that such is your intention, when you 
have reduced your revenue to such a condition ? [Mr. 
G. W. Campbell asked the gentleman if he could tell 
how much money there was now in the treasury.] Mr. 
QuiNCY continued : My memory has not at present at 
command the precise sum, but perhajis twelve or thir- 
teen millions of dollars, charged with the expenses and 
appropriations for the year. But what is this ? Make 
any material preparation for such a war as j^ou must 



148 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

wage, if you engage with either of the European pow- 
ers, and your whole treasury is exhausted. I am not 
now examining the present state of our finances. But 
I would address myself to men of sense, and ask them 
to examine the adequacy of our revenues in their future 
product to the inevitable exigencies of war. Sir, you 
have no other resources, commerce being gone, than 
loans or internal taxes. Great Britain and France know 
this fact as well as you. Nothing can be conducted in 
such a country as ours without public notoriety. The 
general resources of our country are as well known in 
Europe as they are here. But we are about to raise an 
army of fifty thousand volunteers. For what purpose ? 
I have heard gentlemen say, " We can invade Canada." 
But, sir, does not all the world, as well as you, know 
that Great Britain holds, as it were, a pledge for 
Canada ? and one sufficient to induce you to lefrain 
from such a project, when you begin seriously to weigh 
all the consequences of such invasion. I mean that 
pledge which results from the defenceless state of your 
seaport towns. For what purpose would you attack 
Canada ? For territory ? No : you have enough of 
that. Do you want citizen refugees ? No : you would 
be willing to dispense with them. Do you want plun- 
der ? This is the only hope an invasion of Canada can 
oifer you. And is it not very doubtful whether she 
could not in one month destroy more property on your 
seaboard than you can acquire by the most successful 
invasion of that province ? Sir, in this state of things, 
I cannot hear such perpetual outcries about war without 
declaring my opinion concerning them. 

When 1 say, sir, that this administration could not be 



FOR HOLDIKG AN EXTRA SESSION. 149 

induced into a war, I mean by its own self-motion. 
War may — I will not assert that it will not — come. 
But such a state administration do not contemplate, nor 
are they prepared for it. On the contrary, I do believe 
that the very tendency of all imbecile measures is to 
bring on the very event their advisers deprecate. Well 
did the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup) warn you 
the other day not to get into war. He told you it was 
the design of the Federalists to lead you into that state, 
in order that they might get your places. Now, I agree 
with the gentleman that, if by your measures you get 
this country into a war, that you will lose your places. 
But I do not agree that in such case the Federalists 
would get them. No, sir. The course of affairs in 
popular revolutions proceeds, not from bad to better, 
but from bad to worse. After Condorcet and Brissot 
came Danton and Robespierre. Well may gentlemen 
dread, on account of their places, being involved in 
war ! For let the people once begin to look on the state 
of the country with that anxiety which the actual per- 
ception of present danger never fails to awaken : let 
them realize the exigencies which that state involves, 
and compare with them your preparations for it : let 
them see an army in which, perhaps, a full half of your 
citizens cannot confide ; a small navy, rendered less by 
natural decay, and even the few ships we have not in a 
state to give battle ; our treasury exhausted, as it will 
soon be, and all the ordinary sources of commercial sup- 
ply dried away, — and they will hurl you from your 
seats with as little remorse, with as much indifference, 
as a mischievous boy would shy so many blind and 
trembling kittens, six to a litter, into a horse-pond. 



150 SPEECH ON THE BILL 

Yes, sir, be assured that war is the termination of your 
political power, unless you have the prescience to pre- 
pare an effectual force, worthy of this nation, worthy 
of either adversary you may elect to engage. But 
remember you must rely upon something else than the 
paltry surpluses of your treasury, — which, in fact, in 
one year will not exist, — upon something else than 
loans or direct taxes. 

This bill I consider as a continuation of the same 
deception as to the motive as that which operated in 
the j)assage of the original embargo law. If we pass it, 
I fear we shall again be instrumental in deceiving this 
people. The effect of this bill, whatever maj^ be its 
avowed design, is calculated to soothe the people, impa- 
tient under the embargo, until the spring elections are 
passed, and until the first session of the State legislat- 
ures are finished. By a new session of the next Con- 
gress, in May, the people are to be led to hope that next 
May will bring them relief. But let the embargo be 
kept on until May, and, as the honorable gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) told you very ingen- 
uously, it will then be found necessary to keep it on 
until September, and perhaps for another year. This is 
the keystone of the whole j)olicy of this bill, as I appre- 
hend. If it be your real intention to remove this em- 
bargo after May, why do you not adopt a provision 
similar to that proposed the other day by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Sturges), and annex it to this 
bill ? Why not limit the continuance of the embargo 
law until next June, and thereby leave the new Con- 
gress free, relative to this measure, from the power of 
the executive ? Give the people a pledge that the em- 



JFOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 151 

bargo shall be removed at a limited time. At least put 
it into the power of your successors, by refusing to re- 
enact the law, to control the executive's will. This 
pledge the people have a right to claim, if it be your 
real purpose to abandon the measure after May. If, 
however, this be not your policy, avow your intentions. 
Tell the people at once that it is a power of coercion, in 
which you mean to persevere until it has effected its 
object. Show them the reasons on which you rely that 
it will be successful. Perhaps they will consent to 
endure it. But with the present state of things they 
cannot, they ought not to, be satisfied. At least get 
back, by limiting the present law, your commercial 
power, which you have absolutely surrendered to the 
President and twelve men. Permit your successors to 
be as independent of the executive in continuing this 
system as you were when you consented to adopt it. 

The only consistent advocates of the embargo system 
are such gentlemen as those from North and South 
Carolina (Messrs. Macon and D. R. Williams), and they 
are opposed to this bill. They tell you that this is an 
effectual weapon against Great Britain, and believing 
this, as they do, they say truly that a session in May 
will evidence timidity and defeat the effect of the wea- 
pon. You ought to take one or the other ground de- 
cidedly. Either you still confide in its efficacy, or you 
begin to doubt of it. If the former, show your con- 
fidence to be rational, and leave the weapon to have its 
full operation, not unnerved by the hope of a May 
session. If the latter, either repeal it instantl}^ or give 
the people an assurance that it will be done in May. 



152 SPEECH OK THE BILL 

The course you are pursuing has no other tendency than 
to excite suspicions, to agitate and embarrass. 

I ask gentlemen to consider what will be their situa- 
tion in INIay. "Will you be in a better condition to go to 
war then than you are now ? No : you will be in a 
worse. You will be more embarrassed ; you will have 
less revenue ; you will have more discontent. Your 
efficient force will not be materially greater. Will you 
have more encouragement then to strike at the Canadas 
than exists at present ? and what other point of attack 
have you on Great Britain ? Will you be a whit more 
inclined in May or June to remove the embargo than 
you are at this moment ? No : it will be stepping back 
then just as it is now. That dreadful thought will be, 
I fear, sufficient to induce then, as now, adherence to 
the measure six months longer. And, after abundance 
of war speeches. Congress will rise, and leave that 
measure bending down the people until next De- 
cember. 

Sir, these are the general reasons which I have to 
urge against the adoption of this bill. In what I have 
said, my only view has been to exhibit to this House 
and nation the real motives which, as I apprehend, 
caused the original imposition of the embargo, and which 
still operate in support of this bill. I do not believe 
that it is the intention of a majority of this House at 
present to continue this system after ]\Iay. But I do 
believe that it is the intention of administration. My 
design has been to recall the recollection of gentlemen 
to the difference between the arguments now urged for 
its continuance and the official reasons at first given for 



FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 153 

its adoption. And I would warn them that, if they 
mean to gain credit with the people for the intention of 
repealing the embargo in May, they will not obtain it, 
if they leave the next Congress at the mercy of the 
executive, by rising without affixing some limitation 
to it. 



SPEECH 



ON THE RESOLUTION OF CENSURE ON FRANCIS J. 
JACKSON, THE BRITISH MINISTER. 

Dec. 28, 1809. 



SPEECH 

ON THE RESOLUTION OF CENSURE ON FRANCIS J. 
JACKSON, THE BRITISH MINISTER. 

Dec. 28, 1809. 



[In the winter of 1809, just before Mr. Jefferson gave way to 
Mr. Madison, his favorite measure of the embargo was repealed. 
It had answered none of the expectations of its inventors. It 
had paralyzed American commerce, ruined multitudes of mer- 
chants, and reduced the laboring classes, who depended on trade 
for their support, to hopeless poverty, while in England its effects 
had been the very opposite of what had been hoped from it. 
After the first disturbance caused by the withdrawal of the 
American trade was over, the British merchants found that the 
monopoly of the trade of the world which it secured to them 
much more than overbalanced any lo?s it occasioned. Mr. Jef- 
ferson had lost none of his faith in his policy of conquering Eng- 
land by ruining the commerce of America, and he lamented the 
conversion of his own partisans to " the fatal measure of repeal." 
But the tide was too strong to be stemmed, and Mr. Jefferson 
had to see the policy which he had identified with his j^olitical 
life end with it. The mortification attending this compulsion, 
however, was mitigated by the substitution of an Act of Non- 
intercourse with both belligerents. Though this measure was 
far enough from restoring the prosperity the embargo had de- 
stroyed, it was an improvement upon what it replaced, as it 
opened the rest of the world to American commerce, and re- 
moved the worst of the restrictions on the coastwise trade. 



158 SPEECH ON THE 

Mr. Madison, on his accession to the Presidency in March, 
1809, naturally and justly wished to signalize the beginning of 
his administration by the restoration of friendly commercial 
relations with Great Britain. Accordingly, he entered into 
negotiations with this view with Mr. David Erskine, the eldest 
son of the great Lord Erskine, who had been made minister to 
"Washington by the administration of " All the Talents" in 1806. 
He was a man of about thirty, of small diplomatic experience, 
and by no means a match for such experienced hands as Mr. 
Madison and Mr. Gallatin, who wished to cover their own retreat 
from the position taken up under Mr. Jefferson as gracefully as 
they could. In this they were seconded by Mr. Erskine, who 
was connected by marriage with this country and naturally 
wished to be the means of reconciling the two nations, to both 
of which he, in a manner, belonged. But, unfortunately, his 
discretion was not equal to his zeal. The administration of the 
Duke of Portland, in which Mr. Canning was Secretary for 
Foreign Affairs, gave Mr. Erskine very exact instructions as to 
the conditions on which it would revoke the Orders in Council, 
which were carefully guarded so as to save the pride of the 
English nation. The particulars will be found in the histories 
of the times, and need not be recapitulated here. Mr. Erskine 
was authorized to show the desjDatch to the American govern- 
ment, which, however, he omitted to do, fearing, probably, that 
this would stop the negotiation on this side the Atlantic, and 
hoping that the advantages of the Arrangement, as it was called, 
would cause his departure from his instructions to be overlooked 
on the other. The announcement of the Erskine Arrangement, 
made by proclamation on the 17th of April, diffused a general 
joy throughout the country, as it provided for the repeal of the 
Orders in Council. But the joy was soon damped by another 
proclamation of the 9th of August, announcing that the English 
administration had repudiated the Arrangement, as made in 
direct violation of their express instructions. They were tech- 
nically justified in thus acting, but it may be doubted whether it 
was a wise and statesmanlike step. By the Arrangement Eng- 
land would have gained every thing she demanded, without re- 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 159 

nouncing tlie right of search and impressment. The war of 
1812 would not liave occurred, and the irritation of spirit and 
bitterness of feeling which it left behind it — hardly yet ap- 
peased — would have been avoided. 

Mr. Erskine was recalled in disgrace, and he was replaced by 
Mr. Francis J. Jackson, an experienced diplomatist, known at 
the time as " Copenhagen Jackson," from the part he played as 
minister to Denmark at the time of the seizure of the Danish 
fleet by Nelson in 1807, Mr. Madison was deeply mortified by 
the result of his negotiations with Mr. Erskine, and was ill dis- 
posed to give a gracious reception to his successor. A quarrel 
was soon established between them, and on the ground that Mr. 
Jackson had intimated — which he denied — that the President 
knew at the time of the negotiation of the Arrangement that Mr. 
Erskine had no authority to make it, all diplomatic communica- 
tion with him was broken oft', and his recall demanded of his gov- 
ernment. Of course tlie Democratic party in Congress sustained 
Mr. IMadison, and it was on a joint resolution, approving his 
course and severely censuring that of Mr. Jackson, that Mr. 
Quiucy delivered the following speech, December the 28th, 1809. 

It may be proper to say here that Mr. Jackson, jirevious to 
his return to England, had an edition of this speech printed to 
take home with him, as the best defence of himself. A copy of 
this edition is in the possession of the family. — Ed.] 

It is not my intention, ]Mr. Speaker, to offer any 
common-place apology for the few observations I shall 
submit to the House on the subject now under consid- 
eration. Such is the character, and such the conse- 
quences of these resolutions, that no man, who has at 
heart the honor and happiness of this country, ought 
to continue silent, so long as any topic of illustration 
is unexhausted, or any important point of view unoc- 
cupied. 

It is proposed, sir, that this solemn assembly, the rep- 



160 SPEECH ON THE 

resentative of the American people, the depositary of 
their power, and, in a constitutional light, the image 
of their wisdom, should descend from the dignity of 
its legislative duties to the task of uttering against 
an individual the mingled language of indignation and 
reproach. Not satisfied with seeing that individual 
prohibited the exercise of his official character, we are 
invited to pursue him with the joint terrors of legisla- 
tive wrath, couched in terms selected to convey oppro- 
brium and infix a stigma. "Indecorum," "insolence," 
"affront," "more insolence," "more affront," "direct 
premeditated insult and affront," " disguises, fallacious 
and false," — these are the stains we are called upon to 
cast, these the wounds we are about to inflict. It is 
scarcely possible to comprise, within the same compass, 
more of the spirit of whatever is bitter in invective and 
humiliating in aspersion. This heaped-up measure of 
legislative contumely is prepared for whom ? For a 
private, unassisted, insulated, unallied individual ? No, 
sir. For the accredited minister of a great and power- 
ful sovereign, whose character he in this country rep- 
resents, whose confidence he shares ; of a sovereign 
who is not bound, and perhaps will not be disposed, to 
uphold him in misconduct, but who is bound by the 
highest moral obligations and by the most impressive 
political considerations to vindicate his wrongs, whether 
they affect his person or reputation ; and to take care 
that whatever treatment he shall receive shall not ex- 
ceed the measure of justice, and, above all, that it does 
not amount to national indignity. 

Important as is this view of these resolutions, it is 
not their most serious aspect. This bull of anathemas, 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 161 

scarcely less than papal, is to be fulminated in the name 
of the American people from the high tower of their 
authority, under the pretence of asserting their rights 
and vindicating their wrongs. What will that people 
say, if, after the passions and excitements of this day 
shall have subsided, they shall find, and find I fear they 
will, that this resolution is false ; in fact, that a false- 
hood is the basis of these aspersions upon the character 
of a public minister ? What will be their just indigna- 
tion when they find national embarrassment multiplied, 
perhaps their peace gone, their character disgraced, for 
no better reason than that you, their representatives, 
following headlong a temporary current, insist on mak- 
ing assertions, as they may then, and, I believe, will, 
realize to be not authorized by truth, under circum- 
stances and in terms not warranted by wisdom ? 

Let us not be deceived. It is no slight responsibility 
which this House is about to assume. This is not one 
of those holiday resolutions which frets and fumes its 
hour upon the stage and is forgotten for ever. Very dif- 
ferent is its character and consequences. It attempts 
to stamp dishonor and falsehood on the forehead of a 
foreign minister. If the allegation itself be false, it will 
turn to plague the accuser. In its train will follow 
severe retribution, perhaj)s in war ; certainly in addi- 
tional embarrassments ; and most certainly in, worst of 
all, the loss of that sentiment of self-esteem which to 
nations as well as individuals is the " pearl of great 
price," which power cannot purchase nor gold measure. 

In this point of view, all the other questions, which 
have been agitated in the course of this debate, dwin- 
dle into utter insignificance. The attack or defence 

11 



162 SPEECH ON THE 

of administration, the detection of fault, or even the 
exposure of crime, are of no importance when brought 
into competition with the duty of rescuing this House 
and nation from the guilt of asserting what is false, and 
making that falsehood the basis of outrage and viru- 
lence. I avoid, therefore, all questions of censure or 
reproach, on either the British minister or the American 
Secretary of State. I confine myself to an examination 
of this resolution, particularly of the first branch of it. 
This is the foundation of all that follows. I shall sub- 
mit it to a rigid analysis, not for the purpose of discov- 
ering how others have performed their duties, but of 
learning how we shall perform ours. The obligation to 
truth is the highest of moral and social duties. 

It is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that of all the gentle- 
men who have spoken, no one has taken the precise 
terms of the resolution as the basis of his argument, and 
followed that course of investigation which those terms 
naturally prescribe. Yet the obvious and only safe 
course in a case of such high responsibility is first to 
form a distinct idea of the assertion we are about -to 
make, and then carefully to examine how that assertion 
is supported, if supported at all, by the evidence. With 
this view I recur to the resolution in the form in which 
it is proposed for our adoption, and make it the basis of 
my inquiries. 

" Resolved^ By the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of the United States of America, in Congress 
assembled. That the expressions contained in the official 
letter of Francis J. Jackson, minister pleniiDotentiary of 
his Britannic Majesty near the United States, dated the 
twenty-third day of October, 1809, and addressed to 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 163 

Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the idea that 
the executive government of the United States had a 
knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. 
Erskine, his predecessor, in behalf of his government, 
with the government of the United States was entered 
into without competent powers on the part of Mr. 
Erskine for that purpose, were highly indecorous and 
insolent." 

This part of the resolution, it will not be denied, is 
the foundation of the whole : for if no such " idea was 
conveyed " in the letter of the 23d of October, then 
there could be no " repetition " of that idea in the 
letter of the 4th of November ; and if, in the former 
part of his correspondence, Mr. Jackson had made no 
such " insinuation," then the assertion in this letter that 
he had made none was perfectly harmless and justifiable. 
This part, therefore, includes the pith of the resolution. 
If we analyze it, we shall find that it contains two dis- 
tinct assertions. First, that the expressions alluded to 
convey a certain idea ; second, that this idea, so con- 
veyed, is indecorous and insolent. Here, again, we are 
enabled to limit the field of our investigation ; for if no 
such idea as is asserted was conveyed, then the inquiry, 
whether such idea is indecorous and insolent, is wholly 
superseded. The true and only question, therefore, is, 
whether the expressions alluded to do convey the as- 
serted idea. I place the subject in this abstract form 
before the House, to the end that, if possible, we may 
exclude all those prejudices and partialities which so 
naturally and imperceptibly bias the judgment. In the 
light in which it now stands, it must be apparent to 
every one who will reflect that the question has, so far 



164 SPEECH ON THE 

as it respects the principles on which onr decision ought 
to proceed, no more to do with the relations between 
Great Britain and the United States than it has with 
those between the United States and China, and no 
more connection with Mr. Francis J. Jackson and Mr. 
Robert Smith than with the late Charles of Sweden 
and the old Duke of Sudermania. It is a simple philo- 
logical disquisition, which is to be decided by known 
rules of construction. The only investigation is touch- 
ing the power or capacity of certain terms to convey an 
alleged idea. However ill suited a question like this 
may be for the discussion of an assembly like the 
present, yet, if we would be just to ourselves and the 
people, we must submit to an examination of it in that 
form in which alone certainty can be attained. It is 
only by stripping the subject of all adventitious circum- 
stances that we can arrive at that perfect view of its 
nature which can satisfy minds scrupulous of truth and 
anxious concerning duty. It is only by such a rigorous 
scrutiny that we shall be able to form that judgment 
which will stand the test of time, and do honor to us 
and our country when the passions of the day are 
passed away and forgotten. 

The natural course of inquiry now is into the idea 
which is asserted to be conveyed, and the expressions 
which are said to convey it. Concerning the first there 
is no difficulty. The idea asserted to be conveyed is, 
" that the arrangement made between Mr. Erskine and 
Mr. Smith was entered into by the American govern- 
ment, with a knowledge that the powers of Mr. Erskine 
were incompetent for that purpose." It would save a 
world of trouble if the expressions in which this idea is 



CENSURE OP FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 105 

said to be coiivej'ed were equally easy of ascertainment. 
But on this point those gentlemen who maintain this 
insult are far from being agreed : some being of opinion 
that it is to be found in one place ; some in another ; 
and others, again, assert that it is to be found in the 
whole correspondence taken together. Never was au 
argument of this nature before so strangely conducted. 
Gentlemen seem wholly to lay out of sight that this 
resolution pledges this House to the assertion of a par- 
ticular fact, and expresses no general sentiment concern- 
ing the conduct of Mr. Jackson or the conduct of his 
government. Yet, as if the whole subject of the Brit- 
ish relations was under discussion, they have deemed 
themselves at liberty to course through these documents, 
collect every thing which seems to them indecorous, 
insolent, or unsuitable in Mr. Jackson's language, and 
add to the heap thus made the whole list of injuries 
received from Great Britain, impressments, affair of 
the Chesapeake, murder of Pierce ; and all this for what 
purpose ? Why, truly, to justify this House in making 
a solemn asseveration of a particular fact ! as if any 
injury in the world could be even an apology for the 
deliberate utterance of a falsehood. Let the conduct of 
Mr. Jackson or of Great Britain be as atrocious as it 
will, if the fact which we assert do not exist, we and 
this nation are disgraced. It is evident, then, that irk- 
some as such a task is, it is necessary that we should 
submit to a precise inquir}^ into the truth of that to 
M'hicli we are about to pledge our reputation and that 
of this people. 

In our investigation let us follow the natural course 
pointed out in the resolution. This alleges that the 



166 SPEECH ON THE 

obnoxious expressions are contained in the letter of 
the 23d of October, and to this limits our assertion. 
In this letter, therefore, either directly or by way of 
reference to some other, this obnoxious idea or insinua- 
tion must be found. For if it be not in this, even if it 
should be contained in other parts of the correspond- 
ence, which is not, however, pretended, still our asser- 
tion would be false. Concerning this letter of the 
23d of October, I confidently assert, without fear of 
contradiction, that the obnoxious idea, if contained 
in that letter, is conveyed in the jDaragraph I am now 
about to quote. No man has pretended to cite any 
part of this letter as evidence of the asserted insult 
except the ensuing ; and although there is not a perfect 
coincidence in opinion as to the particular part in which 
it resides, yet all agree that it lurks somewhere in this 
paragraph, if it have any dwelling-place in this letter. 

" I have therefore no hesitation in informing you that 
his Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement con- 
cluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was 
concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, 
and altogether without authority to subscribe to the 
terms of it. These instructions I now understand by 
your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which 
I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th in- 
stant, were at the time, in substance, made known to 
you ; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of 
the deviation from them which occurred, than by a 
reference to the terms of your agreement. Nothing can 
be more notorious than the frequency with which, in 
the course of complicated negotiations, ministers are 
furnished with a gradation of conditions on which they 



CENSUKE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 167 

may l)e successively authorized to conclude. So com- 
mon is the case which you put hypothetically, that 
in acceding to the justice of your statement I feel myself 
compelled to make only one observation upon it, which 
is, that it does not strike me as bearing upon the con- 
sideration of the unauthorized agreement concluded 
here, inasmuch as, in point of fact, Mr. Erskine had no 
such graduated instructions. You are already acquainted 
with that which was given, and I have had the honor of 
informing you that it was the only one by which the 
conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed. 
So far from the terms which he was actually induced to 
accept having been contemplated in that instruction, he 
himself states that they were substituted by you in lieu 
of those originally proposed." 

I have quoted the whole paragraph, because in that 
obscure and general mode of argument in which gentle- 
men have indulged, it has been read as that entire 
portion in which the insult is conveyed. It is difficult 
to conceive how some parts of this paragraph can be 
thought to convey any insult. However, in prosecution 
of ni}^ plan, I shall first exclude all those parts in which 
the obnoxious idea cannot be pretended to exist, and 
then limit my investigation to that part in which it must 
exist, if in the letter of the 23d of October it be con- 
ve}' ed at all. 

With respect to the first sentence in this paragraph, I 
say confidently that the insult is not contained there. 
It is simply a declaration of the causes of the disavowal. 
So far is it from including the obnoxious idea of a knowl- 
edge in our government of the incompetency of Erskine's 
powers, that in a manner it excludes that idea, by enu- 



168 SPEECH ON THE 

merating violation of instructions and want of authority 
as the only causes of the disavowal. In the first sen- 
tence, then, the insult is not. I pass by the second, as 
it will be the subject of a distinct examination hereafter. 
The third and fourth sentences it will not even be pre- 
tended convey this obnoxious idea. They simply ac- 
knowledge the frequency of graduated instructions, and 
assert the fact that Mr. Erskine's were not of that 
character. In this there is no insult. As little can it 
be pretended to exist in the fifth sentence. It merely 
asserts that Mr. Smith " already " — that is, at or before 
the time Mr. Jackson was then writing — is acquainted 
with the instructions (a fact not denied, and not sug- 
gested to be an insult), and that the fact of these 
instructions being the only ones, Mr. Smith knows from 
the information of Mr. Jackson; an assertion which, so 
far from intimating the obnoxious idea of a knowledge 
in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrangement with Mr. 
Erskine, that it conveys a contrary idea, by declaring 
that he was indebted for it to his, Mr. Jackson's, infor- 
mation. Here, then, the insult is not. With respect to 
the last sentence in this paragraph, the only assertions 
it contains are the fact that the terms accepted were not 
contained in the instructions, and the evidence of this 
fact, derived from the statement of Mr. Erskine, that 
those acceded to were substituted b}^ Mr. Smith in heu 
of those originally proposed. In all this, the knowledge 
of Mr. Smith of the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's 
powers is not so much as intimated. Indeed, no one has 
pretended directly to assert that they have found it in 
the parts of this paragraph, from which I have thus 
excluded the obnoxious idea. Yet as the whole has 



CENSUEE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 109 

been cited and made the basis of desultory declamation, 
I thought it not time lost to clear out of the way all 
irrelevant matter, and to leave for distinct examination 
the only sentence of this paragraph in which the insult 
lurks, if it have any existence in this letter. This point 
we have now attained. And as little inclined as gen- 
tlemen may be to precise investigation, they must yield 
to it. I say, therefore, confidently, and without fear of 
contradiction, that if the assertion contained in this 
resolution be capable of justification, by any part of 
the letter of the 23d of October, it is by the follow- 
ing, the only remaining sentence of the cited para- 
graph wdiich I have not yet examined : " These 
instructions I now understand by your letter, as well 
as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty 
of making in mine of the 11th instant, were, at the 
time, in substance made known to you ; no stronger 
illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation 
from them which occurred, than by a reference to the 
terms of your agreement." The latter- part of this 
sentence being merely a conclusion from the preceding 
part, and having no relation to the knowledge of our 
government at the time of the arrangement, will be laid 
out of consideration, as being, obviously, wholly with- 
out the possibility of any agency in convejdng the ob- 
noxious idea. There remains only the preceding part 
of this sentence for the residence of the insult. Here, if 
anywdiere, it must exist. Accordingly, this is usually 
shown as the spot where the ghost of insinuation first 
appeared before the eyes of our astonished administra- 
tion. Here we shall again find it; unless, indeed, it 
were in fact a mere delusion of the fancy, formed of 



170 SPEECH ON THE 

" such stuff as dreams are made of." Let us examine 
by way of analysis. 

The sentence to which the advocates of this insult- 
ing insinuation are now reduced contains, first, a fact 
asserted ; second, the sources from which a knowledge 
of that fact is derived. The fact asserted is, that " the 
instructions were, at the time, in substance made known 
to you." The sources stated are, Mr. Smith's letter 
of the 19th of October, and the obvious deductions in 
his (Mr. Jackson's) letter of the 11th." The ques- 
tion is, whether, in either of these branches, or in both 
taken together, directly or in the way of reference, 
the following idea is by any fair construction conveyed, 
viz., " That at the time of the arrangement with Mr. 
Erskine the government of the United States had a 
knowledge of the incompetency of Erskine's powers." 

Previous to proceeding further, I wish to make a 
single observation, by way of illustrating the nature 
and strength of the argument I shall offer. To induce 
this House to adopt a resolution so pregnant with conse- 
quences to the hopes and character of this people, it 
cannot be sufficient merely to show that the insinuation 
on which their assertion is predicated may be conveyed, 
it will require certainty that not only this idea is, but 
also that no other possibly can be. Surely if it be 
possible to show, or even make it probable, that 
another and an innocent idea may be conveyed, this 
House will never consent to make an assertion of such 
high responsibility, on such dubious ground. For the 
purpose of defeating this resolution, it would therefore 
be amply sufficient for me to show that an idea other 
than the obnoxious one may be conveyed. But I do 



CENSUEE OF FKANCIS J. JACKSON. 171 

not limit myself to this task : I undertake to show not 
only that another idea than the obnoxious one may be 
conveyed, but that another is, and that the idea asserted 
in this resolution is not, and by any fair construction of 
language cannot possibly be, conveyed by these expres- 
sions. 

The question recurs in the fact asserted in this sen- 
tence, is the knowledge of our government of the incom- 
petence of Mr. Erskine's powers intimated? So far from 
conveying such an idea that it intimates nothing con- 
cerning the knowledge of our government in relation 
to the general state of Mr. Erskine's powers, the 
simple assertion is, " You knew the substance of those 
instructions," because you admit you knew the condi- 
tions, and I tell you these were the substance. So far 
from this assertion conveying the idea of a knowledge 
in our government of the general state of Mr. Erskine's 
powers, that if jNIr. Jackson had here expressly asserted 
that these instructions were shown in extenso to our 
government, although this, after the denial of Mr. Smith, 
might have been an insult, yet it would not have con- 
ve3"ed the obnoxious idea, nor authorized this resolution, 
unless he had also asserted, or it was a fact, that those 
instructions included an exclusion of all other powers ; 
because the assertion of the knowledge of a particular 
power, which does not include such an exclusion, can 
never convey the idea of the general incompetency of 
the agent. In order to make my argument distinct, I 
will state it more generally : If a particular power con- 
tain an exclusion of all other powers, except those 
expressed in it, then an assertion that this particular 
power was known may convey the idea of a knowledge 



172 SPEECH ON THE 

of the general incompetency of the agent. But if such 
particular power do not, in fact, contain an exclusion of 
all other powers, then to assert that this particular power 
was known can never convey the idea of a knowledge 
of such general incompetency. In this case, it is not 
even suggested that the instructions in question did 
include any such exclusion of other powers. An as- 
sertion, therefore, that they were known can never con- 
vey the idea of a general knowledge of the incompetency 
of the agent, unless a part can be made to include the 
whole, and an assertion that one thing is known can be 
made to convey the idea that every thing is known. If, 
then, an assertion of a knowledge in our government of 
the instructions in extenso would not have conveyed the 
idea of. a general knowledge of Mr. Erskine's powers, 
by much stronger reason a simple assertion that only 
the substance of those instructions was known cannot 
convey that idea. I say, therefore, that, so far as re- 
spects the fact here asserted, not only another idea than 
the obnoxious one may be conveyed, but that another 
idea is, and that the idea this resolution asserts cannot 
by any possibility be conveyed. So that if this idea is 
to be found anywhere in this letter of the 23d of Octo- 
ber, it must be in consequence of the reference to the 
two letters of the 19th and the 11th, which Mr. Jackson 
says were the sources by means of which he understood 
the fact he asserts. Into these letters, therefore, we 
must look after the insulting idea ; for we have now 
shown that it is not in the letter of the 23d of October, 
unless it be by virtue of this reference. 

With respect to Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th, the 
assertion, " I understand by your letter (that of the 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 173 

19th) that the substance of these instructions was 
known to you," has been represented as insolent. So 
far from being insolent, it is not so much as a contra- 
diction. Mr. Smith says, " I knew the three condi- 
tions." " That is what I say," replies Mr. Jackson ; 
" you knew the substance, because I tell you that those 
three conditions were the substance." Here is no con- 
tradiction. The only fact open to dispute is, whether 
the three conditions were the substance. Mr. Jackson, 
indeed, asserts, but Mr. Smith does not deny, this fact. 
He only admits that he knew the three conditions ; 
neither admitting nor controverting the fact asserted by 
Mr. Jackson that they were the substance. But, taking 
it for granted that this assertion was insolent, general 
insolence is no justification to this House for asserting 
a particular fact. It is enough, however, for the pres- 
ent argument to observe that the obnoxious idea, which 
is the basis of the resolution, cannot be conveyed by 
means of this reference to the letter of the 19th, not 
only from the argument just now adduced, showing 
that even the assertion that these instructions were 
kno^Vn in extenso^ would not have conveyed that idea, 
but also from this further consideration, that no gentle- 
man has pretended that it was in consequence of this 
reference to that letter that this obnoxious idea was 
conveyed. 

The advocates of this insult and of this resolution 
are, therefore, driven back to the letter of the 11th. If 
it be not foimd here, it can be found nowhere, at least 
to justify this resolution. With respect to this letter 
of the 11th, we are subjected to the same difficulty to 
which we were reduced in relation to the letter of the 



174 SPEECH ON THE 

23d. Many passages have been read for the purpose of 
general comment, to which, in pursuance of my plan, I 
shall make no allusion. I confine myself only to those 
passages which have been cited to prove the particular 
idea asserted in this resolution. None of these I shall 
omit. With any thing else under this resolution we 
have nothing to do, unless we are willing, by suffering 
extraneous influence to operate, to mislead our own 
judgments, and to deceive our fellow-citizens. 

The following paragraph, in the letter of the 11th of 
October, is the first, and the one principally relied upon, 
to prove the existence of that obnoxious insinuation 
which is the basis of the resolution. " I observe that 
in the records of this mission there is no trace of com- 
plaint on the part of the United States of his Majesty's 
having disavowed the act of his minister. You have 
not, in the conferences we have hitherto held, distinctly 
announced an}^ such complaint ; and I have seen with 
pleasure, in this forbearance on your part, an instance 
of that candor which I doubt not will prevail in all our 
communications, inasmuch as you could not but have 
thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal 
of an act done under such circumstances as could only 
lead to the consequences that have actually followed." 
Here is the insult, the advocates of this resolution as- 
sert, in a sort of embryo state. Let us look at it through 
the spectacles of the friends of the administration, with- 
out any disposition to distort or to change any of its 
proportions. The features of this insult, say these gen- 
tlemen, consist in this : first, in referring to the thoughts 
of Mr. Smith ; second, in intimating that his thoughts 
must have been such as to satisf}^ him that it was 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 175 

unreasonable to complain of an act done under such 
circumstances. In this the insult consists. In other 
words, in this the obnoxious idea is conveyed ; be- 
cause it implies a knowledge in Mr. Smith that it was 
done under circumstances which could only lead to a 
disavowal. Now, say they, the circumstance which 
could only lead to a disavowal is a knowledge in Mr. 
Smith, at the time of the arrangement, of the incompe- 
tency of Mr. Erskine's powers. Thus, say they, the 
knowledge of that incompetency is implied, and the 
idea asserted in this resolution conveyed. This is a fair 
and full statement of their argument. I reply, I do 
agree that these expressions do imply a knowledge 
in Mr. Smith that it was done under circumstances 
which could only lead to a disavowal. But it does not 
imply that this knowledge existed in Mr. Smith at the 
time of the arrangement made ; but, on the contrary, 
does imply, and can imply only, a knowledge in Mr. 
Smith at the time the disavowal was known. The former 
is the only implication which can possibly be obnoxious; 
the latter is most innocent, because, at the time of the 
disavowal known, the circumstances which led to that 
disavowal were communicated. An intimation of this 
knowledge in Mr. Smith could not but be, therefore, 
perfectly inoffensive. That these expressions cannot 
imply a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the 
arrangement made, and can only imjjly a knowledge in 
him at the time of disavowal known, I argue from 
this fact, that the only time intimated is the time when 
Mr. Smith " could not but have thought it unreasonable 
to complain of the disavowal." Now, Mr. Smith could 
not have begun to think of complaining of the disavowal 



176 SPEECH ON THE 

until the disavowal was known to him, and with that 
knowledge came also the knowledge of the circum- 
stances which led to it. Nothing, therefore, can be 
more plain than that the time here implied is the time 
after disavowal known, and not the time of the arrange- 
ment made. The fair construction of these expressions 
is, "You must have thought it, Mr. Smith, unreasonable 
to complain after you knew of the disavowal ; for that 
knowledge apprised you that the act was done under 
circumstances which could only lead to a disavowal." 
I say, therefore, that the idea asserted in this resolution 
(a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrange- 
ment) is not conveyed in this paragraph : another idea 
is conveyed ; viz., a knowledge at the time of disavowal 
known. I say, further, that the idea of knowledge of 
the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's powers in Mr. Smith 
at the time of the arrangement cannot by any possibility 
be conveyed, unless the assertion of a knowledge, exist- 
ing at a time subsequent, can be made to express such 
knowledge, limited to a time antecedent. The only 
knowledge implied is siibsequent to disavowal, and so 
by no possibility can be wrested to express the state of 
knowledge at a time antecedent to disavowal. 

The ensuing paragraph I cite at large, because it has 
been quoted by some of the advocates of this resolution 
as containing the obnoxious idea, although it requires 
onl}'' a single perusal to satisfy any mind that it is im- 
possible that the far greatest part of it can contain any 
thing offensive. It is the only paragraph remaining 
unexamined which has been thus quoted, and will re- 
quire a very short elucidation. " It was not known 
when I left England whether Mr. Erskine had, accord- 



CENSURE OF FEANCIS J. JACKSON. 177 

ing to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in 
extenso his original instructions. It now appears that he 
did not. But, in reverting to this official correspond- 
ence, and particularly to a dispatch addressed, on the 
20.th of April, to his Majesty's Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states that he had 
submitted to your consideration the three conditions 
specified in those instructions, as the groundwork of an 
arrangement, which, according to information received 
from this country, it was thought in England might be 
made with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. 
Erskine then reports, verbatim et seriatim^ your observa- 
tions upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons 
which induced you to think that others might be substi- 
tuted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded 
between you that these latter were an equivalent for 
the original conditions ; but the very act of substitution 
evidently shows that those original conditions were in 
fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you, 
of course, laid before the President for his consideration. 
I need hardly add that the difference between these 
conditions and those contained in the arrangement of 
the 18th and 19th of April is sufficiently obvious to 
require no elucidation ; nor need I draw the conclusion, 
which I consider as admitted, by all absence of com- 
plaint on the part of the American government, viz., 
that under such circumstances his Majesty had an un- 
doubted and incontrovertible right to disavow the act 
of his minister." 

On this passage it is only necessary to remark that, 
so far as it respects the assertion that Mr. Erskine had 
submitted to Mr. Smith the three conditions specified in 

12 



178 SPEECH ON THE 

• 

those instructions, the fact is admitted by Mr. Smith , 
that so far as it respects Mr. Jackson's assertion that 
Mr. Erskine reports, in his official correspondence, the 
reasons which induced Mr. Smith to think that others 
might be substituted in lieu of them, that it is not 
denied by Mr. Smith. For in his letter of the 19th, 
Mr. Smith, referring to this subject, expresses himself 
very cautiously, that Mr. Erskine " on finding his first 
proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms com- 
prised in the arrangement respecting the orders in coun- 
cil were adopted," without denying, as he would if it 
had been false, and he had thought it material, that he 
had offered " reasons to Mr, Erskine, which induced him 
[Mr. Smith] to think that others might be substituted in 
lieu of them." But whether true or false, the asser- 
tion that Mr. Smith had offered such reasons to Mr. 
Erskine can never, by any fair construction, be made 
to convey the idea that Mr. Smith knew that Mr. 
Erskine's powers were limited to the three conditions, 
or, in other words, that Erskine's powers were incom- 
petent. Upon the next sentence the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor) lays great stress, asserting 
that " it conveys the idea that Mr. Smith had over- 
reached Mr. Erskine." Concerning this sentence, my 
first assertion is, that whatever else it may convey, it 
can never convey the idea asserted in this resolution. 
For, certainly, to say of two classes of conditions under 
consideration, that Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine con- 
cluded together that the one was equivalent to the 
other, can only imply a comparison and a knowledge of 
those classes, and by no possibility can imply the state 
of Mr. Smith's knowledge in relation to Mr. Erskine's 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 179 

right to conclude concerning either of thorn. So that 
for all the purposes of supporting this resolution, it is 
utterly useless, whatever other demerit it may have. 
The strenuousness of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Milnor) on this point shows the crude ideas which 
even he, usually so acute and correct, entertains con- 
cerning his duties on this occasion. His great aim was 
to show that Mr. Jackson here intimates the idea that 
Mr. Smith had overreached Mr. Erskine. Well, sup- 
pose he had said this directly, in so man}'- words, 
would this justify the House in voting that Mr. Jack- 
son had conveyed the idea asserted in this resolution ? 
It is the universal fallacy, prove any thing rude or in- 
solent, and it is a sufficient justification to this House 
for asserting a particular, independent fact. Is it pos- 
sible for any mode of conduct to be more unjustifiable 
or thoughtless ; more calculated to bring shame upon 
ourselves and disgrace upon the nation ? 

The next and last sentence in this paragraph is 
merely a declaration of the obvious difference between 
the conditions in the instructions and those contained 
in the arrangement, accompanied by a reference, by way 
of recapitulation to the circumstances alluded to in the 
paragraph which has been before considered. As it has 
been shown that this paragraph did not contain the 
obnoxious idea, it needs no argument to show it is not 
contained in this sentence. Indeed, I have not heard it 
pretended that this is the place of the insult. 

I have thus far proceeded by way of a strict analysis 
of every part of the correspondence in which the in- 
sulting idea asserted in this resolution has been said to 
be conveyed. I havQ omitted no part which has been 



180 



SPEECH ON THE 



cited in support of this first resolution, and think I 
have shown that it exists nowhere in the letter of 
the 28d of October, either in direct assertion or by 
way of reference. And it is concerning what is con- 
tained in that letter alone that the resolution under 
consideration has to do. The House will observe 
that, according to all rules of fair reasoning, it would 
have been sufficient for me to have limited myself to 
show the fallacy of the arguments of the advocates 
of this insult, it being always incumbent on those who 
assert the existence of any thing to prove it. I have 
not, however, thought my duty on so important an 
occasion fulfilled, unless I undertook to prove what the 
lawyers call " a negative," and to show, with as much 
strength of reasoning as I had, the non-existence of the 
idea asserted in this resolution. With what success, I 
cheerfully leave to the decision of such thoughtful men 
in the nation who will take the trouble to understand 
the argument. There is, however, a corroborative view 
of this subject, which ought not to be omitted. 

The insulting idea said to be convej'ed is, that Mr. 
Smith had a knowledge at the time of the arrangement 
of the incompetency of Erskine's powers; and this 
because such a knowledge was one of the essential 
circumstances which could only lead to a disavowal. 
Now it does happen that neither Mr. Erskine nor his 
government enumerate this knowledge of our govern- 
ment as one of those essential circumstances. On the 
contrary, they constantly omit it, when formally enum- 
erating those circumstances. Mr. Canning places the 
disavowal solely on the footing of Mr. Erskine's hav- 
ing " acted not only not in conformity, but in direct 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 181 

contradiction to his instructions." Mr. Jackson, also, 
in his letter of the 23d, \yhen formally enumerating 
the causes of the disavowal, says expressly that the 
disavowal was " because the agreement was concluded 
in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and alto- 
gether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it." 
Now is it not most extraordinary that after such formal 
statements, not including the knowledge of our govern- 
ment among the essential circumstances, that it is on 
this knowledge the British government intend to rely 
for the justification of their disavowal ? I simply ask 
this question, if the British did intend thus to rely on 
the previous knowledge of our government, why do they 
always omit it in their formal enumerations ? And if 
they do not intend thus to rely, in what possible way 
could it serve that government thus darkly to insinuate 
it ? But as if it were intended to leave this House 
wholly without excuse, in passing this resolution, 
Mr. Jackson expressly asserts, in this very letter of 
the 23d of October, that the information of that 
fact was derived from him, the knowledge of which, 
this resolution asserts, he intended to intimate was 
known at the time of the arrangement with Mr. Ers- 
kine. For he specifically says, " I have had the honor 
of informing you that it " (Mr. Erskine's instruction) 
" was the only one b}^ which the conditions on which 
he was to conclude were prescribed." Now if Mr. 
Jackson had remotely intended to intimate that Mr. 
Smith had a previous knowledge of that fact, would he 
have asserted that he was indebted to him (Mr. Jack- 
son) for the information? Conclusive as this argument 
is, there is yet another in reserve, which is a clincher ; 



182 SPEECH ON THE 

and that is, that this yery knowledge, which we pro- 
pose solemnly to affirm Mr. Jackson intimated our gov- 
ernment possessed at the time of the arrangement, it 
is, from the nature of things, impossible they should 
have possessed. The idea asserted to be intended to 
be conveyed is a knowledge in our government that 
the arrangement was entered into without competent 
powers on the part of Mr. Erskine. Now the fact that 
Mr. Erskine's powers were incompetent, it was impos- 
sible for our government to know, except from the 
confession of Mr. Erskine. But Mr. Erskine before, at 
the time, and ever since, has uniformly asserted the 
reverse. So that, besides all the other absurdities grow- 
ing out of this resolution, there is this additional one, 
that it accuses Mr. Jackson of the senseless stupidity of 
insinuating as a fact a knowledge in our government, 
which, from the undeniable nature of things, it is not 
possible tbey should have possessed. Mr. Sj)eaker, can 
any argument be more conclusive ? 

1. The idea is not conveyed by the form of expres- 
sion. 2. Mr. Jackson, though expressly enumerating 
the only causes which led to disavowal, does not suggest 
this. 3. Mr. Jackson expressly asserts that the knowl- 
edge that these were the only instructions was derived 
from him ; of course it could not have been known pre- 
vious to the arrangement. 4. Had he been absurd 
enough to attempt to convey such an idea, the very 
nature of things shows that it could not exist. I con- 
fess I am ignorant by what reasoning the non-existence 
of an insiuuation can be demonstrated, if it be not by 
this concurrence of arguments. 

Before I conclude this part of the subject, it will be 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 183 

necessary to make a single observation or two on the 
following passage in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 4th 
of November ; for althongh our assertion has relation, 
in the part of the resolution under consideration, only 
to the letter of the 23d of October, yet this subse- 
quent passage has been adduced as a sort of accessory 
after the fact. " You will find that, in my correspond- 
ence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing con- 
clusions that did not necessarily follow from the j^rem- 
ises advanced by me, and least of all should I think 
of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to sub- 
stantiate a fact. To facts, as I have become acquainted 
with them, I have scrupulously adhered." This the 
subsequent part of the resolution under debate denom- 
inates " the repetition of the same intimation." But if 
the argument I have offered be correct, there was no 
such " intimation " in the preceding letters, and of 
course no repetitLon of it here. For if he had, as I 
think I have proved in his former letters, uttered no 
such insinuation as is asserted, then all the allegations 
in this paragraph are wholly harmless and decorous ; 
neither disrespectful nor improper. " But this," says 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. INIilnor), "is 
conclusive to my mind that Mr. Jackson did intend to 
insidt ; for if he had not, would he have refrained from 
giving an explanation when it was asked ? " That 
gentleman will recollect that the assertion of this 
House is as to the idea which Mr. Jackson has con- 
veyed in the letter of the 23d, not as to the idea which 
he intended to convey. Suppose he intended it, and 
has not done it, our assertion is still false. But will 
that gentleman seriously conclude, contrary to so obvi- 



184 SPEECH ON THE 

ous a course of argument, that he has asserted, or even 
intended to assert, this particular idea, merely because 
he does not choose to explain it ? Are there not a 
thousand reasons which might have induced Mr. Jack- 
son not to explain, consistent with being perfectly inno- 
cent of the intention originally to convey it ? Perhaps 
■he thought that he had already been explicit enough. 
Perhaps he thought the explanation was asked in terms 
which did not entitle Mr. Smith to receive it. Perhaps 
he did not choose to give this satisfaction. Well, that 
now is " very ungentlemanly," says the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor). I agree, if he pleases, 
so it was. But does that justify this resolution? 
Because he is not a gentleman, shall we assert a false- 
hood ? 

I briefly recapitulate the leading points of my argu- 
ment. When Mr. Jackson asserts " that the substance 
of the instructions was known to our government," the 
expression cannot convey the obnoxious idea, because 
it is not pretended that in those instructions the exist- 
ence of other powers was excluded. When he saj^s, 
" you must have thought it unreasonable to complain 
of disavowal," the time of knowledge implied is confined 
by the structure of the sentence to the time the disavowal 
was knoAvn, and cannot be limited backwards to the time 
the arrangement was made. It is also absurd to suppose 
that Mr. Jackson would intimate, by implication, the 
knowledge of our government of Mr. Erskine's incompe- 
tency of powers at the time of arrangement as an essen- 
tial circumstance, on which the king's right of disavowal 
was founded, and yet omit that circumstance in a formal 
enumeration. And, lastly, it is still more absurd to sup- 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 185 

pose that he would undertake to insmuate a knowledge 
which, from the nature of things, could not possibly 
exist, 

I have thus, Mr. Speaker, submitted to a strict and 
minute scrutiny all the parts of this correspondence 
which have been adduced by any one in support of the 
fact asserted in this resolution. This course, however 
irksome, I thought it my duty to adopt, to the end that 
no exertion of mine might be wanting to prevent this 
House from passing a resolution which, in my appre- 
hension, is pregnant with national disgrace and other 
innumerable evils. 

But let us suppose for one moment that the fact 
asserted in this resolution is true ; that the insult has 
been offered ; and that the proof is not obscure and 
doubtful, but certain and clear. I ask, is it wise, is it 
politic, is it manly for a national legislature to utter on 
any occasion, particularly against an individual, invec- 
tives so full of contumely and bitterness ? Shall we 
gain any thing by it? Have such expressions a ten- 
dency to strengthen our cause, or add weight and 
respectability to those who advocate it ? In private 
life do men increase respect or multiply their friends by 
using the language of intemperate abuse? Sudden 
anger may be an excuse for an individual ; inability to 
avenge an insult may afford an apology to him for 
resorting to these women's weapons : but what can 
excuse a nation for humiliating itself by the use of such 
vindictive aspersions ? Can we plead sudden rage ? 
we on whose wrath thirty suns have gone down ? Is 
this nation prepared to resort for apologies to its weak- 
ness, and to confess that, being unable to do any thing 



186 SPEECH ON THE 

else, it will strive to envenom its adversary witli the 
tongue ? But our honor is assailed. Is this a medica- 
ment for its wounds ? If not, why engage in such re- 
taliatory insults ? Which is best, to leave the British 
monarch at liberty to decide upon the conduct of his 
minister, without any deduction or sympathy on ac- 
count of our virulence, or to necessitate him, in meas- 
uring out justice, to put your intemperance in the scale 
against his imprudence ? Railing for railing is a fair 
offset all over the world. And I ask gentlemen to con- 
sider whetlier it be not an equivalent for a constructive 
insinuation. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the hand of the 
chief magistrate of this nation is in this thing. In every 
aspect this resolution is at war with that wise and tem- 
perate ground on which he has placed this insult in 
the letter to Mr. Pinkney. " You are particularly 
instructed, in making those communications, to do it in 
a manner that will leave no doubt of the undiminished 
desire of the United States to unite in all the means 
the best calculated to establish the relations of the two 
countries on the solid foundation of justice, of friend- 
ship, and of mutual interests." Is there a man in this 
House who can lay his hand on his heart and say that, 
by adopting this resolution, we are about " to unite in 
all means the best calculated to establish the relations 
of the two countries on the solid foundations of justice, 
friendship, and mutual interest " ? I hesitate not to say 
that there is no man who can make such an assevera- 
tion. 

But if it would be wise and politic to refrain from 
uttering this opprobrious resolution, in case the insult 



CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 187 

was gross, palpable, and undeniable, how much more 
wise and politic if this insult be only dubious, and has, 
at best, but a glimmering existence ? But suppose the 
assertion contained in this resolution be, as it appears to 
many minds, — and certainly to mine, — false, I ask, what 
worse disgrace, what lower depth of infamy, can there 
be for a nation than deliberately to assert a falsehood, 
and to make that falsehood the groundwork of a grad- 
uated scale of atrocious aspersions upon the character of 
a public minister ? 

When I say that the assertion contained in this reso- 
lution is false, I beg gentlemen distinctly to understand 
me. I speak only as it respects the effects of evidence 
upon my mind. I pretend not to make my perceptions 
the standard of those of any other. I know the nature 
of the human mind, and how imperceptibly even to 
ourselves passion and preconception will throw, as it 
were, a mist before the intellectual eye, and bend or 
scatter the rays of evidence before they strike o-n its 
vision. On a question of this kind, as I would not trust 
the casual impressions of others, so I have been equally 
unwilling to trust my own. I have therefore submitted 
the grounds of my opinion to a rigid analysis. The 
process and the result of my reasonings I have laid 
before this House. If that which to me appears a pal- 
pable falsehood, to others appeared a truth, I condemn 
not them, — I can only lament such a diversity on a 
point which, in its consequences, may be so important 
to the" peace and the character of the country. 

But this resolution was devised for the purpose of 
promoting unanimity. Is there a man in this House who 
believes it ? Did you ever hear, Mr. Speaker, that Ian- 



188 SPEECH ON THE 

guage of reproach and of insult was the signal for con- 
ciliation ? Did you ever know contending parties made 
to harmonize by terms of insult, of reproach, and con- 
tumely? No, sir. I deprecate this resolution on this 
very account, that it is much more like the torch of the 
furies than like the token of friendship. Accordingly, 
it has had the effect of enkindling party passions in the 
House, which had begun in some degree to be allayed. 
It could not possibly be otherwise. A question is raised 
concerning a constructive insult. Of all topics of dispute, 
those relative to the meaning of terms are most likely 
to beget diversity and obstinacy in opinion. But this 
is not all. On a question merely relative to the con- 
struction of particular expressions, all the great and 
critical relations of the nation have been discussed. Is 
it possible to conceive that such a question as this, on 
which the debate has been thus conducted, could be 
productive of any thing else than discord and conten- 
tion ? 

For my own part, I have purposely avoided all refer- 
ence to any of the great questions which agitate the 
nation. I should deem myself humiliated to discuss 
them under a resolution of this kind, which in truth 
decides nothing but our opinion of the meaning of Mr. 
Jackson's language, and our sense of its nature ; and has, 
strictly speaking, nothing to do with any of the national 
questions which have been drawn into debate. 

I declare, therefore, distinctly that I oppose and vote 
against this resolution from no one consideration rela- 
tive ' to Great Britain or the United States ; from none 
of friendship or animosity to any one man, or set of men : 
but simply and solely for this one reason, that in my 



CENSURE OF FEANCIS J. JACKSON. 189 

conception the assertion contained in this resolution is 
a falsehood. 

But it is said that this resolution must be taken as " a 
test of patriotism." To this I have but one answer. If 
patriotism ask me to assert a falsehood, I have no hesi- 
tation in telling patriotism, " I am not prepared to 
make that sacrifice." The duty we owe to our country 
is indeed among the most solemn and impressive of all 
obligations ; yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless 
subordinate to that which we owe to that Being with 
whose name and character truth is identified. In this 
respect, I deem myself acting upon this resolution 
under a higher responsibility than either to this House 
or to this people. 



SPEECH 



ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL TO ENABLE THE 
PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS TO 
FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, 
AND FOR THE ADMISSION OF SUCH STATE INTO 
THE UNION. 

Jan. 14, 1811. 



/y^ 



SPEECH 



ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE 
OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS TO FORM A CON- 
STITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE 
ADMISSION OF SUCH STATE INTO THE UNION. 

Jan. 14, 1811. 



[This is the most famous speech Mr. Quincy ever delivered. 
It made the deepest impression of any at the time it was 
delivered, and has continued to be quoted, rightly or wrongly, 
almost to the present day. It was recalled to recollection at the 
time of the excitement attending the admission of Texas, and, 
indeed, at all times when questions as to gross violations of the 
Constitution were under discussion. It was cited especially at 
the time of the Rebellioti, and with an approbation I am sure it 
did not deserve, on both sides of the Atlantic, as containing the 
same doctrine of secession which was held by the jn'omoters 
and defenders of that revolt. I do not apprehend that any 
candid reader of the speech will deem this opinion well grounded. 
Mr. Quincy did not hold that a State had a constitutional or a 
natural right to withdraw from the Union when it thought it best 
for its own interests. He did maintain that such a violation of 
the fundamental compact might be made that the moral obligation 
to maintain it ceased and the right of revolution attached. And 
he undoubtedly believed and emphatically affirmed in this speech 
that this act was such a violation of the Constitution as released 
the States from their constitutional obligations, and remitted 
them to their original right anterior to the Constitution, if they 
chose to appeal to it, to form such a new government as should 

13 



194 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

be most for their own advantage. Right or wrong, he adhered 
to the opinions expressed in this speech to the dny of his death. 

It will be observed that neither he nor his party objected to 
the admission of Louisiana in itself considered. It was neces- 
sary for the protection of the South-western States that the free 
navigation of the Mississipjii should be secured by the United 
States. His position was, that the provision in the Constitution 
for the erecting of new States applied only to the territory in the 
possession of the nation at the time of its adoption, and that it 
never entered into the hearts of its fraraers to conceive that the 
whole continent might be annexed by virtue of that provision ; 
and that such annexation could be constitutionally effected only by 
an amendment of the Constitution authorizing it. This was also 
the opinion of Mr. Jefferson himself, as appears from his own 
letters. In one to Mr. Breckenridge, August 12, 1802, he writes 
of the purchase of this territory : " They (the two Houses of 
Congress), I presume, will do their duty to their country in rati- 
fying and paying for it ; but I suppose they must then appeal to 
the nation for an additional article in the Constitution approv- 
ing and confirming an act which the nation had not previously 
authorized. The Constitution has made no provision for our 
holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign 
nations into our Union." And, again, in a letter of Levi Lincoln, 
August 30, 1803, he says : " The less said about any constitutional 
difficulty the better. I find but one opinion as to the necessity of 
shutting up the Constitution for some time." 

The object of this coup d'etat, thus profligately perpetrated, 
was not merely the acquisition of the vast territory opened to 
slave labor comprised within the Territory of Orleans. Its 
design was to place the indefinite extension of slave territory in 
the hands of a majority of Congress, in which the united South 
were always sure of holding the balance of power. The pur- 
chase of Florida, the annexation of Texas, the Mexican war 
and the enormous addition of territory consequent upon it, were 
all effected by acts of Congress, and all in the interest of 
slavery. By this act the control of the nation was delivered 
over to the slave powers for fifty years, and it is impossible to 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 195 

say how much longer that domination might have lasted had it 
not been for the pride going before destruction that it fostered, 
and which tempted it to take the sword by which it perished. 
I am not afraid to rest Mr. Quincy's fame, as a sagacious states- 
man and a true prophet, upon this speech. The history of the 
next half-century, I think, justifies this claim, by the tale it tells 
of the supremacy of slaveiy through the operation of the prin- 
ciple of this very bill, and of the convulsion which followed the 
first successful resistance to its absolute sway and unlimited 
extension. — Ed.] 

Mr. Speaker, — I address you, sir, with an anxiety 
and distress of mind, with me, wholly unprecedented. 
The friends of this bill seem to consider it as the exer- 
cise of a common power, as an ordinary affair, a mere 
municipal regulation which they expect to see pass with- 
out other questions than those concerning details. But, 
sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liber- 
ties and rights of the wliole people of the United States. 
To me it appears that it would justify a revolution in 
this country ; and that, in no great length of time, it may 
produce it. When I see the zeal and perseverance with 
which this bill has been urged along its parliamentary 
patli, when I know the local interests and associated 
projects which combine to promote its success, all oppo- 
sition to it seems manifestly unavailing. I am almost 
tempted to leave, without a struggle, ni}'- country to its 
fate. But, sir, while there is life, there is hope. So 
long as the fatal shaft has not yet sped, if heaven so 
will, the bow may be broken and the vigor of the mis- 
chief-meditating arm withered. If there be a man in 
this House or nation who cherishes the Constitution 
under which we are assembled, as the chief stay of his 



196 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

hope, as the light which is destined to gladden his own 
day, and to soften even the gloom of the grave by the 
prospect it sheds over his children, I fall not behind 
him in such sentiments. I will yield to no man in 
attachment to this Constitution, in veneration for the 
sages who laid its foundations, in devotion to those 
principles which form its cement and constitute its 
proportions. What, then, must be my feelings, — what 
ought to be the feelings of a man cherishing such sen- 
timents, when he sees an act contemplated which lays 
ruin at the root of all these hopes? when he sees a 
principle of action about to be usurped, before the oper- 
ation of which the bands of this Constitution are no 
more than flax before the fire, or stubble before the 
whirlwind. When this bill passes, such an act is done, 
and such a principle usurped. 

Mr. Speaker, there is a great rule of human con- 
duct which he who honestly observes cannot err widely 
from the path of his sought duty. It is to be very 
scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the 
test of your rights and obligations ; to be very faithful 
in noticing the result of their apjilication ; and to be 
very fearless in tracing and exposing their immediate 
effects and distant consequences. Under the sanction 
of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as 
my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of 
this Union are virtually dissolved ; that the States tvhich 
compose it are free from their moral obligations ; and that 
as it ivill be the right of all, so it ivill be the duty of some 
to prepare definitely for a separation — amicably, if they 
can ; violently, if they must. 

[Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Poiu- 



\ 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 197 

dexter, delegate from the Mississii")!)! Territory, for the 
words quoted. After it was decided, upon an appeal 
to the House, that Mr. Quincy was in order, he pro- 
ceeded.] 

I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, at the result of this appeal ; 
not from any personal consideration, but from the re- 
spect paid to the essential rights of the people in one 
of their representatives. .When I spoke of the separa- 
tion of the States, as resulting from the violation of the 
Constitution contemplated in this bill, I spoke of it as 
a necessity deeply to be deprecated, but as resulting 
from causes so certain and obvious as to be absolutely 
inevitable, when the effect of the principle is practically 
experienced. It is to preserve, to guard the Constitu- 
tion of my countrj^ that I denounce this attempt. I 
would rouse the attention of gentlemen from the apathy 
with which they seem beset. These observations are 
not made in a corner ; there is no low intrigue, — no 
secret machination. I am on the people's own ground ; 
to them I appeal concerning their own rights, their own 
liberties, their own intent in adopting this Constitution. 
The voice I have uttered, at which gentlemen startle 
with such agitation, is no unfriendly voice. I intended 
it as a voice of warning. By this people and by the 
event, if this bill passes, I am willing to be judged, 
whether it be not a voice of wisdom. 

The bill which is now proposed to be passed has this 
assumed principle for its basis, — that the three branches 
of this national government, without recurrence to con- 
ventions of the people in the States, or to the legisla- 
tures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners 
to a share of the political power in countries out of the 



198 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

original limits of the United States. Now this assumed 
principle I maintain to be altogether without any sanc- 
tion in the Constitution. I declare it to be a manifest 
and atrocious usurpation of power ; of a nature dissolv- 
ing, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the 
obligations of our national compact, and leading to all 
the awful consequences which flow from such a state of 
things. 

Concerning this assumed principle, which is the basis 
of this bill, this is the general position on which I rest 
my argument, — that if the authority now proposed to be 
exercised be delegated to the three branches of the gov- 
ernment, by virtue of the Constitution, it results either 
from its general nature or from its particular provisions. 
I shall consider distinctly both these sources, in relation 
to this pretended jjower. 

Touching the general nature of the instrument called 
the Constitution of the United States, there is no ob- 
scurity : it has no fabled descent, like the palladium of 
ancient Troy, from the heavens. Its origin is not con- 
fused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness 
of past, unexplored ages : it is the fabric of our day. 
Some now living had a share in its construction : all of 
us stood by and saw the rising of the edifice. There 
can be no doubt about its nature. It is a political com- 
pact. By whom ? and about what ? The preamble to 
the instrument will answer these questions : — 

" We, the people of the United States, in order to 
form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do- 
mestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings 
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 199 

establish this Constitution for the United States of 
America." 

It is we, the people of the United States, for our- 
selves and our posterity, not for the people of Louisi- 
ana, nor for the people of New Orleans, or of Canada. 
None of these enter into the scope of the instrument : it 
embraces only " the United States of America." Who 
these are it may seem strange in this place to inquire. 
But truly, sir, our imaginations have, of late, been so 
accustomed to wander after new settlements to the 
very ends of the earth, that it will not be time ill spent 
to inquire what this phrase means and what it includes. 
These are not terms adopted at hazard ; they have refer- 
ence to a state of things existing anterior to the Consti- 
tution. When the people of the present United States 
began to contemplate a severance from their parent 
State, it was a long time before they fixed definitively 
the name by which they would be designated. In 177'!, 
they called themselves " the Colonies and Provinces of 
North America ; " in 1775, " the Representatives of the 
United Colonies of North America ; " in the Declaration 
of Independence, " the Representatives of the United 
States of America ; " and, finally, in the articles of con- 
federation the style of the confederacy is declared to be 
" the United States of America." It was with refer- 
ence to the old articles of confederation, and to preserve 
the identity and established individuality of their char- 
acter, that the preamble to this Constitution, not con- 
tent simply with declaring that it is " we the people of 
the United States " who enter into this compact, adds 
that it is for " the United States of America." Con- 
cerning the territory contemplated by the people of 



200 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

the United States in these general terms, there can be 
no dispute : it is settled by the treaty of peace, and 
included within the Atlantic Ocean, the St. Croix, the 
lakes, and more precisely, so far as relates to the fron- 
tier, having relation to the present argument, within 
" a line to be drawn through the middle of the river 
Mississippi until it intersect the northernmost part of 
the thirtj^-first degree of north latitude, thence within 
a line drawn due east on this degree of latitude to the 
river Appalachicola, thence along the middle of this river 
to its junction with the Flint river, thence straight to 
the head of the St. Mary's river, and thence down the 
St. Mary's to the Atlantic Ocean." 

I have been thus particular to draw the minds of gen- 
tlemen distinctly to the meaning of the terms used in 
the preamble ; to the extent which " the United States " 
then included ; and to the fact that neither New 
Orleans nor Louisiana was within the comprehension 
of the terms of this instrument. It is sufficient for the 
present branch of ni}^ argument to say that there is 
nothing in the general nature of this compact from 
which the power contemplated to be exercised in this 
bill results. On the contrary, as the introduction of a 
new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a 
new division of power and consequent diminution of 
the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it, 
there can certainly be nothing more obvious than that, 
from the general nature of the instrument, no power can 
result to diminish and give away to strangers any pro- 
portion of the rights of the original partners. If such 
a power exist, it must be found, then, in the particu- 
lar provisions in the Constitution. The question now 



LOUISIANA A& A STATE. 201 

arising is, in whicli of these provisions is given the 
power to admit new States, to be created in Territories 
beyond the limits of the old United States. If it exist 
anywhere, it is either in the third section of the fourth 
article of the Constitution or in the treaty-making 
power. If it result from neither of these, it is not 
pretended to be found anywhere else. 

That part of the third section of the fourth article 
on which the advocates of this bill rely is the following : 
" New States may be admitted, by the Congress, into 
this Union ; but no new State shall be formed or erected 
within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State 
be formed by the junction of two or more States, or 
parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures 
of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress." 

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the first clause of this para- 
graph has been read, with all the superciliousness of a 
grammarian's triumph, " New States may be admitted, 
by the Congress, into this Union," accompanied with 
this most consequential inquiry : " Is not this a new 
State to be admitted ? And is not here an express 
authority ? " I have no doubt this is a full and satis- 
factory argument to every one who is content with the 
mere colors and superficies of things. And if we were 
now at the bar of some stall-fed justice, the inquiry 
would insure victory to the maker of it, to the manifest 
delight of the constables and suitors of his court. But, 
sir, we are now before the tribunal of the whole Ameri- 
can people ; reasoning concerning their liberties, their 
rights, their Constitution. These are not to be made 
the victims of the inevitable obscurity of general terms, 
nor the sport of verbal criticism. The question is con- 



202 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

cerning the intent of the American people, the proprie- 
tors of the old United States, when they agreed to this 
article. Dictionaries and spelling-books are here of no 
authority. Neither Johnson nor Walker nor Webster 
nor Dilworth has any voice in this matter. Sir, the 
question concerns the proportion of power reserved by 
this Constitution to every State in this Union. Have 
the three branches of this government a right, at will, 
to weaken and outweigh the influence respectively se- 
cured to each State in this compact, by introducing 
at pleasure new partners situate beyond the old limits 
of the United States ? The question has not relation 
merely to New Orleans. The great objection is to the 
principle of the bill. If this principle be admitted, the 
V whole space of Louisiana — greater, it is said, than the 
entire extent of the old United States — will be a mighty 
theatre in which this government assumes the right of 
exercising this unparalleled power. And it will be — 
there is no concealment it is intended to be — exercised. 
Nor will it stop until the very name and nature of the 
old partners be overwhelmed by new-comers into the 
confederacy. Sir, the question goes to the very root of 
the power and influence of the present members of this 
Union. The real intent of this article is, therefore, an 
inquiry of most serious import ; and is to be settled only 
by a recurrence to the known history and known rela- 
tions of this people and their Constitution. These, I 
maintain, support this position, that the terms " new 
States," in this article, do intend new political sover- 
eignties, to be formed within the original limits of the 
United States ; and do not intend new political sov- 
ereignties, with territorial annexations, to be created 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 203 

without the original limits of the United States. I 
undertake to support both branches of this position to 
the satisfaction of the people of these United States. 
As to any expectation of conviction on this floor, I know 
the nature of the ground, and how hopeless any argu- 
ments are which thwart a concerted course of meas- 
ures. 

I recur, in the first place, to the evidence of history. 
This furnishes the following leading fact, — that before, 
and at the time of, the adoption of this Constitution, 
the creation of new political sovereignties, within the 
limits of the old United States, was contemplated. 
Among the records of the old Congress, will be found a 
resolution, passed as long ago as the 10th of October, 
1780, contemplating the cession of unappropriated 
lands to the United States, accompanied by a provision, 
" that they shall be disposed of for the common benefit 
of the United States and be settled and formed into dis- 
tinct republican States, which shall become members of 
the federal union, and have the same rights of sover- 
eignty, freedom, and independence as the other States." 
Afterwards, on the 7th of July, 1786, the subject of 
" laying out and forming into States "the country lying 
north-west of the river Ohio came under the considera- 
tion of the same body ; and another resolution was passed 
recommending to the legislature of Virginia to revise 
their act of cession, so as to permit a more eligible divi- 
sion of that portion of territory derived from her ; 
" which States," it proceeds to declare, " shall hereafter 
become members of the federal union, and have the 
same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence 
as the original States, in conformity with the resolution 



204 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

of Congress of the lOtli of October, 1780." All the 
Territories to which these resolutions had reference 
were, undeniably, within the ancient limits of the 
United States. Here, then, is a leading fact, that the 
article in the Constitution had a condition of things, 
notorious at the time when it was adopted, upon which 
it was to act, and to meet the exigency resulting from 
which such an article was requisite. That is to say, 

' new States, within the limits of the old United States, 
were contemplated at the time when the foundations 
of the Constitution were laid. But we have another 
authority upon this point, which is, in truth, a contem- 
poraneous exposition of this article of the Constitution. 
I allude to the resolution passed on the 3d of July, 1788, 
in the words following : " Whereas application has been 
lately made to Congress by the legislature of Virginia, 
and the district of Kentucky, for the admission of the 
said district into the federal union, as a separate mem- 

. ber thereof, on the terms contained in the acts of the 
said legislature, and in the resolutions of the said dis- 
trict, relative to the premises : And whereas Congress, 
having fully considered the subject, did, on the third 
day of June last, resolve that it is expedient that the 
said district be erected into a sovereign and independent 
State and a separate member of the federal union ; and 
appointed a committee to report and act accordingi}'^, 
which committee on the second instant was discharged, 
it appearing that nine States had adopted the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, lately submitted to conven- 
tions of the people : And whereas a new confederacy 
is formed among the ratifying States, and there is rea- 
son to believe that the State of Virginia, including the 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 205 

said district, did, on the 25th of June last, become a 
member of the said confederacy : And whereas an act 
of Congress, in the present state of the government of 
the country, severing a part of the said State from the 
other parts thereof, and admitting it into the confed- 
eracy, formed by the articles of confederation and per- 
petual union, as an independent member thereof, may 
be attended with many inconveniences, while it can 
have no effect to make the said district a separate mem- 
ber of the federal union formed by the adoption of the 
said Constitution, and therefore it must be manifestly 
improper for Congress, assembled under the articles of 
confederation, to adopt any other measures relative to the 
premises than those which express their sense that 
the said district ought to be an independent member of 
the Union as soon as circumstances shall permit proper 
measures to be adopted for that purpose, — " Resolved, 
that a copy of the proceedings of Congress, relative to 
the independency of the district of Kentucky, be trans- 
mitted to the legislature of Virginia, and also to Samuel 
M'Dowell, Esq., late President of the said Convention ; 
and that the said legislature, and the inhabitants of the 
district aforesaid, be informed that, as the Constitution 
of the United States is now ratified. Congress think it 
unadvisable to adopt any further measures for admit- 
ting the district of Kentucky into the federal union, as 
an independent member thereof, under the articles of 
confederation and perpetual union ; but that Congress, 
thinking it expedient that the said district be made a 
separate State and member of the Union, as soon after 
proceedings shall commence under the said Constitution 
as circumstances shall permit, recommends it to the 



206 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

said legislature, and to the inhabitants of the said dis- 
trict, so to alter their acts and resolutions relative to the 
premises, as to render them conformable to the provi- 
sions made in the said Constitution, to the end that no 
impediment may be in the way of the speedy accom- 
plishment of this important business." 

In this resolution of the old Congress it is expressly 
declared that the Constitution of the United States 
having been adopted by nine States, an act of the old 
Congress could have no effect to make Kentucky a 
separate member of the Union, and that, although they 
thought it expedient that it should so be admitted, yet 
that this could only be done under the provisions made 
in the new Constitution. It is impossible to have a more 
direct contemporaneous evidence that the case con- 
templated in this article was that of Territories within 
the limits of the old United States ; yet the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Macon, for whose integrit}'- 
and independence I have very great respect, told us the 
other day, that " if this article had not Territories with- 
out the limits of the old United States to act upon, it 
would be wholly without meaning ; because the ordinance 
of the old Congress had secured the right to the States 
within the old United States, and a provision for that 
object in the new Constitution was wholly unnecessary." 
Now, I will appeal to the gentleman's own candor if the 
very reverse of the conclusion he draws is not the true 
one, after he has considered the following fact, — that by 
this ordinance of the old Congress it was declared that 
the boundaries of the contemplated States, and the 
terms of their admission, should be, in certain particu- 
lars specified in the ordinance, subject to the control of 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 207 

Congress. Now, as by the new Constitution the old 
Congress was about to be annihilated, it was absolutely 
necessary for the very fulfilment of this ordinance that 
the new Constitution should have this power for the 
admission of new States within the ancient limits ; so 
that the ordinance of the old Congress, far from show- 
ing the inutility of such a provision for the Territories 
within the ancient limits, expressly proves the reverse, 
and is an evidence of its necessity to effect the object of 
the ordinance itself. 

I think there can be no more satisfactory evidence 
adduced or required of the first part of the position, — 
that the terms " new States " did intend new political 
sovereignties within the limits of the old United States. 
For it is here shown that the creation of such States, 
within the territorial limits fixed by the treaty of 1783, 
had been contemplated ; that the old Congress itself 
expressly asserts that the new Constitution gave the 
power for that object ; that the nature of the old ordi- 
nance required such a power for the purpose of carrying 
its provisions into effect ; and that it has been, from the 
time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution unto 
this hour, applied exclusively to the admission of States 
within the limits of the old United States, and was 
never attempted to be extended to any other object. 
Now, having shown a purpose, at the time of the adop- 
tion of the Constitution of the United States, sufiicient 
to occupy the Avhole scope of the terms of the article, 
ought juot the evidence to be very strong to satisfy the 
mintl that the terms really intended something else 
besides this obvious purpose ; that it may be fairly 
extended to the entire circle of the globe, wherever title 



208 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OP 

can be obtained by purchase or conquest, and that new 
partners in the political power may be admitted, at the 
mere discretion of this legislature, anywhere that it wills. 
A principle, thus monstrous, is asserted in this bill. 

But I think it may be made satisfactorily to aj^pear, 
not only that the terms, " new States," in this article, 
did mean political sovereignties to be formed within the 
original limits of the United States, as has just been 
shown, but also negatively, that it did not intend new 
political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to 
be created without those original limits. This appears 
first from the very tenor of the article. All its limi- 
tations have respect to the creation of States within 
the original limits. Two States shall not be joined ; no 
new State shall be erected within the jurisdiction of 
any other State, — without the consent of the legislat- 
ures of the States concerned as well as of Congress. 
Now, had foreign territories been contemplated ; had 
the new habits, customs, manners, and language of 
other nations been in the idea of the framers of this 
Constitution, — would not some limitation have been 
devised to guard against the abuse of a power in its 
nature so enormous, and so obviously calculated to excite 
just jealousy among the States, whose relative weight 
would be so essentially affected by such an infusion at 
once of a mass of foreigners into their councils and 
into all the rights of the country? The want of all 
limitation of such power would be a strong evidence, 
were others wanting, that the powers, now about to be 
exercised, never entered into the imagination of those 
thoughtful and prescient men who constructed the 
fabric. But there is another most powerful argument 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 209 

against the extension of the terms of this article to 
embrace the right to create States, without the original 
hmits of the United States, deducible from the utter 
silence of all debates at the period of the adoption of 
the Federal Constitution, touching the power here pro- 
posed to be usurped. If ever there was a time, in 
which the ingenuity of the greatest men of an age was 
taxed to find arguments in favor of and against any 
political measure, it was at the time of the adoption of 
this Constitution. All the faculties of the human mind 
were, on the one side and the other, put upon their 
utmost stretch, to find the real and imaginary blessings 
or evils likely to result from the proposed measure. 
Now I call upon the advocates of this bill to point out, 
in all the debates of that period, in any one publication, 
in any one pamphlet, in any one newspaper of those 
times, a single intimation, by friend or foe to the Con- 
stitution, approving or censuring it for containing the 
power here proposed to be usurped, or a single sugges- 
tion that it might be extended to such an object as is 
now proposed. I do not say that no such suggestion 
was ever made. But this I will say, that I do not 
believe there is such an one anywhere to be found. 
Certain I am, I have never been able to meet the shadow 
of such a suggestion ; and I have made no inconsiderable 
research upon the point. Such may exist; but, until 
it be produced, we have a right to reason as though it 
had no existence. No, sir, the people of this country, 
at that day, had no idea of the territorial avidity of 
their successors. It was, on the contrary, an argument 
used against the success of the project, that the territory 
was too extensive for a republican form of government. 

14 



210 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

But now there are no limits to our ambitious hopes. 
We are about to cross the Mississippi. The Missouri 
and Red River are but roads on which our imagination 
travels to new lands and new States to be raised and 
admitted (under the power now first usurped) into 
this Union, among the undiscovered lands in the West. 
But it has been suggested that the Convention had 
Canada in view in this article, and the gentleman from' 
North Carolina t'old this House that a member of the 
Convention, as I understood him, either now or lately 
a member of the Senate, informed him that the article 
had that reference. Sir, I have no doubt the gentleman 
from North Carolina has had a communication such as 
he intimates. But, for myself, I have no sort of faith 
in these convenient recollections, suited to serve a turn, 
to furnish an apology for a party or give color to a proj- 
ect. I do not deny, on the contrary I believe it very 
probable, that among the coursings of some discursive 
and craving fancy, such thoughts might be started ; 
but that is not the question. Was this an avowed 
object in the Convention when it formed this article ? 
Did it enter into the conception of the people when its 
principles were discussed ? Sir, it did not ; it could not. 
The very intention would have been a disgrace both to 
this people and the Convention. What, sir? Shall it be 
intimated, shall it for a moment be admitted, that the 
noblest and purest band of patriots this or any other 
country ever could boast were engaged in machinating 
means for the dismemberment of the territories of a 
power to which they had pledged friendship, and the 
observance of all the obligations, which grow out of a 
strict and perfect amity? The honor of our country 
forbids and disdains such a suggestion. 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 211 

But there is an argument stronger even than all those 
which liave been produced, to be drawn from the nature 
of the power here proposed to be exercised. Is it possi- 
ble tliat such a power, if it had been intended to be given 
by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect 
of general expressions ? and such, too, as were obviously 
applicable to another subject, to a particular exigency 
contemplated at the time ? Sir, what is this power we 
propose now to usurp ? Nothing less than a power 
changing all the proportions of the weight and influence 
possessed by the potent sovereignties composing this 
Union. A stranger is to be introduced to an equal 
share without their consent. Upon a principle pre- 
tended to be deduced from the Constitution this gov- 
ernment, after this bill passes, may and will multijily 
foreign partners in power at its own mere motion, at its 
irresponsible pleasure ; in other words, as local interests, 
party passions, or ambitious views, may suggest. It is a 
power that from its nature never could be delegated, 
never was delegated ; and, as it breaks down all the 
proportions of power guaranteed by the Constitution to 
the States, upon which their essential security depends, 
utterly annihilates the moral force of this political con- 
tract. Would this people, so wisely vigilant concerning 
their rights, have transferred to Congress a power to 
balance at its will the political weight of any one State, 
much more of all the States, by authorizing it to create 
new States at its pleasure in foreign countries, not pre- 
tended to be within the scope of the Constitution or 
the conception of the people at the time of passing it ? 
This is not so much a question concerning the exercise 
of sovereignty as it is who shall be sovereign ; whether 



212 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

the proprietors of the good old United States shall man- 
age their own affairs in their own way, or whether they 
and their Constitution and their political rights shall be 
trampled under foot by foreigners, introduced through 
a breach of the Constitution. The proportion of the 
political weight of each sovereign State constituting 
this Union depends upon the number of the States 
which have a voice under the compact. This number 
the Constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure 
within the limits of the original United States, observing 
only the expressed limitations in the Constitution. But 
when, in order to increase your power of augmenting 
this number, you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a 
violation of the Constitution in a fundamental point, 
and in one also which is totally inconsistent with the 
intent of the contract and the safety of the States 
which established the association. What is the practi- 
cal difference to the old partners whether they hold 
their liberties at the will of a master, or whether, by 
admitting exterior States on an equal footing with the 
original States, arbiters are constituted, who, by avail- 
ing themselves of the contrariety of interests and view s 
which in such a confederacy necessarily will arise, hold 
the balance among the parties which exist and govern 
us by throwing themselves into the scale most conform- 
able to their purposes ? In both cases there is an effec- 
tive despotism. But the last is the more galling, as we 
carry the chain in the name and with the gait of free- 
men. 

I have thus shown, and whether fairly I am willing to 
be judged by the sound discretion of the American peo- 
ple, that the power proposed to be usurped in this bill 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 213 

results neither from the general nature nor the particu- 
lar provisions of the Federal Constitution, and that it is 
a palpable violation of it in a fmuhimental point, whence 
flow all the consequences I have intimated. 

But says the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rhea), 
" These people have been seven years citizens of the 
U-nited States." I deny it, sir. , As citizens of New 
Orleans or of Louisiana they never have been, and by 
the mode proposed they never will be, citizens of the 
United States. They may be girt upon us for a mo- 
ment, but no real cement can grow from such an asso- 
ciation. What the real situation of the inhabitants of 
those foreign countries is, I shall have occasion to 
show presently. But says the same gentleman, " If I 
have a farm, have not I a right to purchase another 
farm in my neighborhood, and settle my sons upon it, 
and in time admit them to a share in the management 
of my household? " Doubtless, sir. But are these cases 
parallel ? Are the three branches of this government 
owners of this farm called the United States ? I desire 
to thank heaven they are not. I hold my life, libert}^ 
and property, and the people of the State from which I 
have the honor to be a representative hold theirs, by a 
better tenure than any this national government can 
give. Sir, I know your virtue ; and I thank the Great 
Giver of every good gift that neither the gentleman 
from Tennessee nor his comrades, nor any nor all the 
members of this House, nor of the other branch of 
the legislature, nor the good gentleman who lives in the 
palace yonder, nor all combined, can touch these my 
essential rights, and those of my friends and constitu- 
ents, except in a limited and prescribed form. No, sir: 



214 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

we hold these by the laws, customs, and principles of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Behind her am- 
ple shield we find refuge and feel safety. I beg gentle- 
men not to act upon the principle that the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts is their farm. 

But the gentleman adds, " AVhat shall we do if we 
do not. admit the people of Louisiana into our Union ? 
Our children are settling that country." Sir, it is no 
concern of mine what he does. Because his children 
have run wild and uncovered into the woods, is that a 
reason for him to break into my house or the houses of 
my friends to filch our children's clothes in order to 
cover his children's nakedness ? This Constitution never 
was and never can be strained to lap over all the wilder- 
ness of the West without essentially affecting both the 
rights and convenience of its real proprietors. It was 
never constructed to form a covering for the inhabitants 
of the Missouri and the Red River country ; and when- 
ever it is attempted to be stretched over them it will 
rend asunder. I have done with this part of my argu- 
ment. It rests upon this fundamental principle, that 
the proportion of political power, subject only to the 
internal modifications permitted by the Constitution, is 
an unalienable, essential, intangible right. When it is 
touched, the fabric is annihilated ; for on the preserva- 
tion of these proportions depend our rights and liber- 
ties. 

If we recur to the known relations existing among 
the States at the time of the adoption of this Constitu- 
tion, the same conclusion will result. The various in- 
terests, habits, manners, prejudices, education, situation, 
and views, which excited jealousies and anxieties in the 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 215 

breasts of some of our most distinguished citizens touch- 
ing the result of the proposed Constitution, were potent 
obstacles to its adoption. The immortal leader of our 
Revolution, in his letter to the President of the old 
Congress, written as President of the Convention which 
formed this compact, thus speaks on this subject : " It 
is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line 
between those rights which must be surrendered and 
those which may be reserved ; and, on the present occa- 
sion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among 
the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, 
and particular interests." The debates of that period 
will show that the effect of the slave votes upon the 
political influence of this part of the country, and 
the anticipated variation of the weight of power to the 
West, were subjects of great and just jealousy to some 
of the best patriots in the Northern and Eastern States. 
Suppose, then, that it had been distinctly foreseen that, 
in addition to the effect of this weight, the whole popu- 
lation of a world beyond the Mississippi was to be 
brought into this and the other branch of the legis- 
lature to form our laws, control our rights, and decide 
our destiny. Sir, can it be pretended that the patriots 
of that day would for one moment have listened to it? 
They were not madmen. They had not taken degrees 
at the hospital of idiocy. They knew the nature of 
man, and the effect of his combinations in political 
societies. They knew that when the weight of par- 
ticular sections of a confederacy was greatly unequal, 
the resulting power would be abused ; that it was not 
in the nature of man to exercise it with moderation. 
The verv extravagance of the intended use is a conclu- 



216 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

sive evidence against the possibility of the grant of such 
a power as is here proposed. Why, sir, I have already 
heard of six States, and some say there will be at no 
great distance of time more. I have also heard that 
the mouth of the Ohio will be far to the east of the cen- 
tre of the contemplated empire. If the bill is passed, 
the principle is recognized. All the rest are mere ques- 
tions of exj)ediency. It is impossible such a power 
sj could be granted. It was not for these men that our 

I fathers fought. It was not for them this Constitution 
was adopted. You have no authority to throw the 

' rights and liberties and property of this people into 
" hotch-pot " with the wild men on the Missouri, nor 
with the mixed, though more respectable, race of Anglo- 
Hispano-Gallo- Americans who bask on the sands in the 
mouth of the Mississippi. I make no objection to these 
from their want of moral qualities or political light. 
The inhabitants of New Orleans are, I suppose, like 
those of all other countries, — some good, some bad, 
some indifferent. 

As then the power in this bill proposed to be usurped 
is neither to be drawn from the general nature of the 
instrument nor from the clause just examined, it follows 
that, if it exist anywhere, it must result from the treaty- 
making power. This the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Rhea) asserts, but the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Macon) denies, and very justly ; for 
what a monstrous position is this, that the treaty-making 
power has the competency to change the fundamental 
relations of the Constitution itself ! that a power under 
the Constitution should have the ability to change and 
annihilate the instrument from which it derives all its 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 217 

power! and if the treaty-making power can introduce 
new partners to the political rights of the States, there 
is no length, however extravagant or inconsistent with 
the end, to which it may not be wrested. The present 
President of the United States, when a member of the 
Virginia Convention for ado2:)ting the Constitution, 
expressly declares that the treaty-making power has 
limitations ; and he states this as one, " that it cannot 
alienate any essential right." Now is not here an 
essential right to be alienated ? — the right to that pro- 
portion of political power which the Constitution has 
secured to every State, modified only by such internal 
increase of States as the existing limits of the territories 
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution per- 
mitted. The debates of that period chiefly turned upon 
the competency of this power to bargain away any of 
the old States. It was agreed, at that time, that by 
this power old States, within the ancient limits, could 
not be sold from us ; and I maintain that by it new 
States, without the ancient limits, cannot be saddled 
upon us. It was agreed, at that time, that the treaty- 
making power " could not cut off a limb ; " and I main- 
tain that neither has it the competency to clap a hump 
upon our shoulders. The fair proportions devised by 
the Constitution are in both cases marred, and the fate 
and felicity of the political being, in material particulars 
related to the essence of his constitution, affected. It 
was never pretended, by the most enthusiastic advocates 
for the extent of the treaty-making power, that it 
exceeded that of the king of Great Britain. Yet I ask, 
suppose that monarch should make a treaty stipulating 
that Hanover or Hindostan should have a rioht of 



218 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

representation on the floor of Parliament, would such 
a treaty be binding ? No, sir ; not, as I believe, if a 
House of Commons and of Lords could be found venal 
enough to agree to it. But although, in that country, 
the three branches of its legislature are called omnipo- 
tent, and the people might not deem themselves justified 
in resistance, yet here there is no apology of this kind. 
The limits of our power are distinctly marked ; and, 
when the three branches of this government usurp upon 
this Constitution in particulars vital to the liberties of 
this people, the deed is at their peril. 

I have done with the constitutional argument. 
Whether I have been able to convince any member of 
this House, I am ignorant : I had almost said indiffer- 
ent ; but this I will not say, because I am indeed deeply 
anxious to prevent the passage of this bill. Of this I 
am certain, however, that when the dissensions of this 
day are passed away ; when party spirit shall no longer 
prevent the people of the United States from look- 
ing at the principle assumed in it, independent of 
gross and deceptive attachments and antipathies, — the 
ground here defended will be acknowledged as a high 
constitutional bulwark, and that the princi]3les here 
advanced will be appreciated. 

I will add one word touching the situation of New 
Orleans. The provision of the treaty of 1803 which 
stipulates that it shall be " admitted as soon as possible " 
does not therefore imply a violation of the Constitution. 
There are ways in which this may constitutionally be 
effected, — by an amendment of the Constitution, or by 
reference to Conventions of the people in the States. 
And I do suppose that, in relation to the objects of the 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 219 

present bill (the people of New Orleans), no great diffi- 
culty would arise. Considered as an important accom- 
modation to the Western States, there would be no 
violent objection to the measure. But this would not 
answer all the projects to which the principle of this 
bill, when once admitted, leads, and is intended to be 
applied. The whole extent of Louisiana is to be cut up 
into independent States, to counterbalance and to par- 
alyze whatever there is of influence in other quarters 
of the Union, — such a power I am well aware that the 
people of the States would never grant you. And 
therefore, if you get it, the only way is by the mode 
adopted in this bill, — by usurpation. 

The objection here urged is not a new one. I refer 
with great delicacy to the course pursued by any mem- 
ber of the other branch of the legislature ; yet I have 
it, from such authority that I have an entire belief of 
the fact, that our present minister in Russia,* then a 
member of that body when the Louisiana treaty was 
under the consideration of the Senate, although he was 
in favor of the treaty, yet expressed great doubts, on 
the ground of constitutionality, in relation to our con- 
trol over the destinies of that people, and the manner 
and the principles on which they could be admitted 
into the Union. And it does appear that he made two 
several motions in that body, having for their object, 
as avowed and as gathered from their nature, an alter- 
ation in the Constitution to enable us to comply with 
the stipulations of that Convention. 

I will add only a few words, in relation to the moral 

* Mr. John Quincy Adams. 



220 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

and political consequences of usurping this power. I 
have said that it would be a virtual dissolution of the 
Union ; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the 
expression. But the true source of terror is not the 
declaration I have made, but the deed you propose. Is 
there a moral principle of public law better settled, or 
more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, 
than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties 
may be considered as exempting the other from its 
obligations ? Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a 
partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new 
partner without the concurrence of the other three, 
would it not be at their option to abandon the partner- 
ship after so palpable an infringement of their rights ? 
How much more in the political partnership, where the 
admission of new associates, without previous authority, 
is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils ! Again : 
it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on 
public law, that no person can be obliged beyond his 
intent at the time of the contract. Now who believes, 
who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, 
when they adopted this Constitution, to assign event- 
ually to New Orleans and Louisiana a portion of their 
political power, and to invest all the people those 
extensive regions might hereafter contain with an 
/ authority over themselves and their descendants ? 
When jou throw the weight of Louisiana into the scale, 
you destroy the political equipoise contemplated at the 
time of forming the contract. Can any man venture to 
affirm that the people did intend such a comj^rehension 
as you now by construction give it ? or can it be con- 
cealed that, beyond its fair and acknowledged intent, 



In 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 221 

such a compact has no moral force ? If gentlemen are 
so alarmed at the bare mention of the consequences, let 
them abandon a measure which, sooner or later, will 
produce them. How long before the seeds of discontent 
will ripen no man can foretell ; but it is the part of 
wisdom not to multiply or scatter them. Do j^ou sup- 
pose the people of the Northern and Atlantic States 
will or ought to look on with patience and see Repre- 
sentatives and Senators, from the Red River and Mis- 
souri, pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, 
managing the concerns of a sea-board fifteen hundred 
miles at least from their residence, and having a pre- 
ponderancy in councils into which, constitutionally, 
they could never have been admitted? I have no hesi- 
tation upon this point. They neither will see it, nor 
ought to see it, with content. It is the part of a wise 
man to foresee danger and to hide himself. This great 
usurpation, which creeps into this House under the 
plausible appearance of giving content to that important 
point. New Orleans, starts up a gigantic power to control 
the nation. Upon the actual condition of things, there 
is, there can be, no need of concealment. It is apparent 
to the blindest vision. By the course of nature and 
conformable to the acknowledged principles of the Con- 
stitution, the sceptre of power in this country is jjassing 
towards the North-west, Sir, there is to this no objec- 
tion. The right belongs to that quarter of the country : 
enjoy it. It is yours. Use the powers granted, as you 
please ; but take care, in your haste after effectual 
dominion, not to overload the scale by heaping it with 
these new acquisitions. Grasp not too eagerly at 3'our 
purpose. In your speed after uncontrolled sway, 



222 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 

trample not clown this Constitution. Already the old 
States sink in the estimation of members, when brought 
into comparison with these new countries. We have 
been told that " New Orleans was the most important 
point in the Union." A place, out of the Union, the 
most important place within it ! We have been asked 
" what are some of the small States, when compared 
with the Mississippi Territory ? " The gentleman from 
that territor}'- (Mr. Poindexter) spoke the other day of 
the Mississippi as "of a high road between'' — Good 
heavens ! between what, Mr. Speaker ? Why, " The 
Eastern and Western States," So that all the north- 
western territories, all the countries once the extreme 
western boundary of our Union, are hereafter to be 
denominated Eastern States ! 

[Mr. Poindexter explained. He said that he had not 
said that the Mississippi was to be the boundary between 
the Eastern and Western States. He had merely 
thrown out a hint that, in erecting new States, it might 
be a good high road between the States on its waters. 
His idea had not extended beyond the new States on 
the waters of the Mississij)pi.] 

I make no great point of this matter. The gentleman 
will find in the " National Intelligencer" the terms to 
which I refer. There will be seen, I presume, what he 
has said, and what he has not said. The argument is 
not aifected by the explanation. New States are in- 
tended to be formed beyond the Mississippi. There is 
no limit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of 
California and Columbia river. When I said that the 
bill would justify a revolution and would produce it, I 
spoke of its principle and its practical consequences. 



LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 223 

To this principle and those consequences I would call 
the attention of this House and nation. If it he ahout 
to introduce a condition of things absolutely insupport- 
able, it becomes wise and honest men to anticipate the 
evil, and to warn and prepare the people against the 
event. I have no hesitation on the subject. The 
extension of this principle to the States contemplated 
beyond the Mississippi cannot, will not, and ought not 
to be borne. And the sooner the people contemplate 
the unavoidable result the better, — the more chance 
that convulsions may be prevented, the more hope that 
the evils may be palliated or removed. 

Mr. Speaker, Avhat is this liberty of which so much 
is said ? Is it to walk about this earth, to breathe this 
air, and to partake the common blessings of God's provi- 
dence ? The beasts of the field and the birds of the air 
unite with us in such privileges as these. But man 
boasts a purer and more ethereal temperature. His 
mind grasps in its view the past and future, as well as 
the present. We live not for ourselves alone. That 
which we call liberty is that principle on which the 
essential security of our political condition depends. It 
results from the limitations of our political system pre- 
scribed in the Constitution. These limitations, so long 
as they are faithfully observed, maintain order, peace, 
and safety. When they are violated in essential par- 
ticulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush 
against each other; and disorder, derangement, and con- 
vulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences. 

With respect to this love of our Union, concerning 
■which so much sensil)ility is expressed, I have no fear 
about analyzing its nature. There is 'in it nothing of 



224 ADMISSION OF LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 

mysteiy. It depends upon the qualities of that Union, 
and it results from its effects upon our and our country's 
happiness. It is valued for " that sober certainty of 
waking bliss " which it enables us to realize. It grows 
out of the affections ; and has not, and cannot be made 
to have, any thing universal in its nature. Sir, I con- 
fess it, the first public love of my heart is the Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts. There is my fireside ; there 
are the tombs of my ancestors. 

" Low lies that land, yet blest witli fruitful stores, 
Strong are her sons, tliough rocky are her shores ; 
And none, ah ! none, so lovely to my sight, 
Of all the lands which heaven o'erspreads with light." 

The love of this Union grows out of this attachment 
to my native soil, and is rooted in it. I cherish it, 
because it affords the best external hope of her peace, 
her prosperity, her independence. I oppose this bill 
from no animosity to the people of New Orleans, but 
from the deep conviction that it contains a principle 
incompatible with the liberties and safety of my country. 
I have no concealment of my opinion. The bill, if it 
passes, is a death-blow to the Constitution. It may 
afterwards linger ; but lingering, its fate will, at no very 
distant period, be consummated. 



SPEECH 

ON THE INFLUENCE OF PLACE AND 
PATRONAGE. 

Jan. 30, 1811. 



15 



SPEECH 

ON THE INFLUENCE OF PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
Jan. 30, 1811. 



[Thr following ppeecli was one of the earliest protests in our 
history against the abuse of making the otfices under government 
a fund for buying political support. The Marcy heresy, that 
" to the victors belong the spoils," had not yet been broached ; 
and compared with the flood of corruption, the gates of which 
were opened under the disgraceful administration of General 
Jackson, and which have not yet been closed, the stream which 
flowed from the White House sixty years since was but a rill. 
But little things seemed great in those days of small things, and 
Mr. Quincy was moved to utter the following words of admoni- 
tion and reproof, as a relief to his own mind rather than with 
any sanguine hope of eflTecting a reformation. Though its 
assaults and its innuendoes could not have been well-pleasing to 
the supporters of the administration, it was listened to with 
apparent good-humor, and its hits met with abundant laughter. 
Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, having moved that an amend- 
ment to the Constitution be submitted to the people, providing 
that no Senator or Rej^resentative should be appointed to any 
office under government until the presidential term under which 
he had served as such should have expired, Mr. Quincy moved 
as an amendment that "no person standing to any Senator or 
Representative in the relation of father, brother, or son, by blood 
or marriage, shall be appointed to any civil office under the 
United States, or shall receive any place, agency, contract, or 



228 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATllONAGE. 

emolument from or under any department or officer thereof." 
After his speech was finished, Mr. Wright, of Maryland, moved, 
by way of reductio ad absurdiim, that " every Senator and Repre- 
sentative, on taking his seat, should furnish a table of his 
genealogy," which he afterwards modified, on the suggestion 
that a Senator or Representative might marry, and thus change 
his connections, so as to read, " Each member of the Senate and 
House, when he takes his seat, shall file a list of his relatives 
precluded by said resolution." It need hardly be told that not 
only tlie amendments but the Self-denying Ordinance itself failed 
of the necessary majority. This speech was well approved by 
the Federalists, and Mr. Quincy received many assurances of 
approval of it. President John Adams wrote him a letter 
couched in terms of admiration, which even filial piety cannot 
regard as otherwise than excessive, not to say hyperbolical. He 
writes, " I owe you thanks for your speech on Place and Patron- 
age ; the moral and patriotic sentiments are noble and exalted, 
the eloquence masterly, and the satire inimitable. There are 
not in Juvenal nor in Swift any images more exquisitely ridicu- 
lous."— Ed.] 

Mr. Chairman, — The amendment to the Constitu- 
tion proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina is 
of the nature of a remedy for an evil. The proposition 
which I have the honor to submit is similar in jninciple, 
but embraces a wider sphere of action, and is offered as 
a medicament of a higher power. His amendment has 
for its object to purify the legislature of that corruption 
which springs from the hope of office for ourselves. 
My proposition has for its object to purify the legislature 
of that corruption which springs from the attainment 
of office for our relations ; and if the House will take 
the trouble to analyze the respective natures of these 
two evils, it will find that the evil to which my proposi- 
tion refers is higher in nature and more intense in 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 229 

degree than that to which the amendment of the gentle- 
man from North Carolina has reference ; that is to sa}^ 
the present attainment of office for our relations, for 
those near and dear to us, Avho are parts of our blood, 
and, if our natures be generous, parts of ourselves, 
is an application to the principle of human action, as 
much more strong and alluring than the distant hope of 
office for ourselves, as fruition is a nearer approximation 
to bliss than expectation, or as payment in hand is 
better than payment in promise. 

I shall offer a few considerations in support of my 
proposition, not only by Avay of elucidation to this 
House, but also for the purpose of attracting the atten- 
tion of the pul)lic to the subject ; for I am well aware 
that, let it be discussed when it will, and under what 
administration it will, it cannot fail to be in this and the 
other branch of the legislature a bitter pill ; and, unless 
it have the aid of external pressure, it will stick in the 
passage. 

I knoAV the nature of the subject, and am aAvare that 
it is very delicate and very critical. Why, sir, it relates 
to nothing less than our blood and our purses, — objects, 
of all others, the most squeamishly sensitive, and the 
most jealous of other people's interference. It shall be 
my endeavor, however, to handle the topic with as much 
caution as possible ; and, in order to avoid all appearance 
of party or personality, I shall speak concerning things 
past and things future, without particular notice of 
things present. 

In the first place, I would remark that our general 
mode of speaking, both on this floor and in common 
conversation, concerning this power of distributing 



230 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

offices, is, in my judgment, not strictly accurate in itself, 
and may be questioned as unjust to the President of the 
United States. It is denominated executive influence ; 
by way of analogy and in conformity perhaps to the 
practice in Great Britain, where the Crown, being 
proprietor of offices, distributes them at will among 
favorites. But the state of things is different in this 
country. Here the executive has no proprietary interest 
in the offices which he distributes. He does not create 
them ; he does not, except in a few instances, even 
designate the amount of emolument. All these, in fact, 
proceed from the legislature. We are the creators ; he 
is the channel for communicating them to their objects : 
so that if the members of this and the other branch of 
the legislature become venal in this countr}^ they are, 
to say the least, half workers in their own corruption. 
A mode of expression ought not, therefore, to be used 
tending to throw the guilt exclusively on another branch 
of the government. Another j)hrase is more just and 
appropriate. Sir, it ought to be called pecuniary influ- 
ence, — the love of money wrapped up in very thin 
covers and disguises, called offices for ourselves and 
offices for our relations. 

I shall consider the principle of this amendment and 
proposition in relation to the Constitution, its nature 
and necessity. 

If we look into the Constitution, we shall find no part 
more palpably defective than its provision against the 
effects of tliat executive influence, as it is called, resulting 
from the power of distributing offices at pleasure among 
the members of both branches of the legislature and their 
relations. There is, I think, but one provision upon the 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 231 

subject. This is contained in the following clause of the 
last paragraph of the sixth section of the first article : 
" No senator or representative shall, during the time for 
which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office 
under the authority of the United States, which shall 
have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall 
have been increased, during such time." This provision, 
I say, considered as a security against that corruption 
which springs from the distribution of offices, is palpably 
defective. In relation to its objects it is limited, and in 
its means w^ants efficiency. What are its objects ? It 
aims only to prevent multiplication of offices and in- 
crease of their emolument ; so that, provided we do not 
create new offices, nor increase the old emolument, the 
craving spirit of avarice has free range to solicit and 
corrupt both branches of the legislature. All the 
numerous allurements of existing offices, all the rich 
reward of established salaries, are permitted to play 
their bewitching fascinations before our eyes. So long 
as a man does not attempt to take the fruit of seed of 
his own sowing, he may botanize at his pleasure in this 
great executive garden ; and whether he seek flower or 
fruit he ma3% to the full, please his fancy or satiate his 
appetite. And if we consider the means, it will be 
found that they are inadequate. There is but one 
limitation ..." during the time for which he was 
elected." What is this, considered as security? It is 
scarcely less than totally inefficient. Notwithstanding 
this provision a man may, — I say may, Mr. Chairman, for 
I would not be understood to affirm that anj^ such creat- 
ure now exists, or has ever heretofore appeared in this 
or the other branch of the legislature; but I speak of 



232 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

the possibility of that gross and debasing corruption, 
such as has appeared in other countries, and may, there- 
fore, hereafter appear in this, — a man may be a mere 
spaniel to the executive : he may fetch and carry, run 
upon all his errands, and, at his whistle, roll himself 
over on these floors, without regard to either coat or 
conscience ; and on the last day of the term for which 
he was elected, when, perhaps, he has been ejected from 
the people's favor as foul and odious, he may, in spite of 
this provision, be instrumental in creating an office, or 
increasing an emolument, of which the very next day he 
shall take the profits. Is not such a provision, consid- 
ered as a security against corruption from the distribu- 
tion of offices, like tantalism to this people ? I would 
not, however, be thought to hold at a mean rate this 
part of our Constitution. Notwithstanding its defi- 
ciency, it is precious ; because it recognizes the possi- 
bility of the existence of this principle of corruption in 
this and the other branch of the legislature ; because it 
is a standing and a solemn warning against its effects. 
It gives us ground to stand upon, and, through the in- 
strumentality of the power of amendment, may enable 
this people to wrench out of this soil by the roots this 
foul and growing pollution. 

If we compare the principle of this amendment and 
my proposition with the principles of the Constitution, 
we shall find that it no less harmonizes with them than 
it does with this provision of the instrument. If there 
be a principle universally allowed by men of all parties 
to be the basis of liberty, with the existence of which 
it is admitted on all hands that the essence of freedom 
is identified, it is, that the three great departments of 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 233 

power — the legislative, executive, and judicial — ought 
to be separate and distinct. The consolidation of these 
three powers into one has been denominated '' the defini- 
tion of despotism ; " and in proportion as these powers 
approximate to consolidation, the spirit of despotism 
steals over us. At the time of the adoption of this 
instrument, it Avas an objection raised against it b}" some 
of its most enlightened opposers, that its tendency was 
to such a consolidation, and on this account they strove 
to rouse the spirit of liberty ; but their anticipations 
had chiefly reference to the forms of the Constitution, 
and particularly to that qualified control which the 
executive has over the acts of the legislature. They 
anticipated not at all, or at least very obscurely, that 
consolidation which has grown and is strengthening 
under the influence of the office-distributing power 
vested in the executive : a consolidation perceptible to 
all, and which is the more fixed and inseparable, inas- 
much as the cement is constituted of the strongest of 
all amalgams, — that of the precious metals. This state 
of things is not the less to be deprecated, on account of 
the fact that the forms of the Constitution are preserved 
while its spirit is perishing. The members of both 
branches may meet, deliberate, and act, but the spirit 
of independence is gone whenever the action of the 
■legislature is identified with the Avill of the executive 
b}^ the potent influence of the office-hoping and the 
office-holding charm. 

With respect to the nature of this influence, I re- 
mark that a misconception seems to be entertained^ 
concerning it. The bare suggestion of its existence is 
almost thought to be indecorous, because of the gross 



234 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

and palpable corruption in which it is supposed to con- 
sist. It is thought to imply a sort of precontract be- 
tween the executive and his selected favorites, — so 
many votes for so many offices, or such an office for 
such a term of Swiss service. Sir, nothing of this kind 
is pretended. Such sale of conscience and duty in open 
market is not reconcilable with the present state of civ- 
ilized society. And they are mightily offended if there 
be any suggestion, ever so remote, of pollution, or any 
hint that they have been about any thing else, in their 
transactions with the executive, than pursuing the pure 
love of glory and their country. But the corruption of 
which I speak, and which is the object of both the 
amendment and proposition, is of a nature neither very 
gross nor very barefaced. Yet on these accounts it is 
not the less to be deprecated. On the contrary, from 
its very insidiousness and its appearing so often almost 
in the garb of a virtue ought it to be watched and re- 
stricted. 

Such is its nature that it corrupts the very fountain 
of action. It springs up out of the human heart and 
the condition of things, so that it is almost impossible 
that it should not exist, or that it should be altogether 
resisted. It has its origin in that love of place which is 
so inherent in the human heart that it may be called 
almost an universal and instinctive passion. It cannot 
be otherwise ; for so long as the love of honor and the 
love of profit are natural to man, so long the love of 
place, which includes either the one or the other or 
both, must be a very general and prevalent impulse. 
It cannot, therefore, but be true as a general principle, 
and it casts no reflection to admit that all meinbers 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 235 

of Congress may love offices at least as well as their 
neighbors. Now, witli the love of place there is another 
principle concurrent in relation to members of Congress, 
wliicli is the result of our political condition, and is this : 
that those most desirous of places in the executive gift 
will not expect to be gratified except through their sup- 
port of the executive. In referring to this principle as 
the result of our political condition, I mean to cast no 
particuUir reflection on our present chief magistrate. It 
grows out of the nature of political combinations. But, 
with some highly honorable exceptions, it has been true 
in all past, and will be true in all future administrations, 
that the general way for members of Congress to gain 
offices for themselves or their relations is to coincide in 
opinion, and vote with the executive. Out of the union 
of these two principles, the love of office and the gen- 
eral impression that coincidence with the executive is 
an essential condition for obtaining office, grows that 
corruption of the very fountain of action, the purifica- 
tion of which is the aim of both the amendment and 
my proposition under consideration. It exists without 
any precontract with the executive. He knows our 
wants, without any formal specification from us ; and we 
know his terms, without any previous statement from 
him. The parties proceed together, mutually gratifying 
and gratified as occasions offer, and the harmonies of the 
happy part of the legislature and of the executive are 
complete ; and were it not that there is a third party 
concerned, called the people of the United States, 
nothing would seem more pleasant or unexceptionable 
than this partnership in official felicity. But so it is, 
in truth, that the interests and liberties of the peo- 



236 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

pie, which we are sent here to consult, will not only 
be sometimes neglected, but at others absolutely sacri- 
ficed, while the constituted guardians are gaping after 
offices for themselves, or hunting them up for their rela- 
tions. The nature of the corruption is such as not only 
easily to be concealed from the world, but also in a 
great measure from the individual himself. And so 
long as that free access, which is at present permitted 
by the Constitution, is unrestrained, it will continue, 
and may increase. On every question which arises and 
has relation to executive measures, in addition to all the 
other conside:rations of honor, policy, justice, propriety, 
and the like, this also is prepared to be thrown into the 
scale, — that if a man means to gain office he must coin- 
cide Avith the executive. It is not possible for any man 
to decide what degree of influence this consideration 
has upon another, and it is nearly, if not quite, as diffi- 
cult for him to decide what degree of influence it may 
have upon himself. For let any man reflect upon the 
springs of any particular course of action, which vari- 
ous, concurrent, complex motives have induced him to 
adopt, and he will find it very difficult to apportion to 
each of the concurring motives the j)recise degree of 
influence which belongs to it. And he will also find 
that, if there be in the group one motive base, and con- 
sequently bashful of the light, it will shrink away into 
the deepest recesses of the heart, and there cover itself 
over with such an accumulation of plausible, specious 
motives, that it is beyond the power of poor human nat- 
ure, in the ordinary strength of its moral sense, always 
to discover it. From the liability of having the source 
of our public actions corrupted by the infusion of such 



SPEECH OX PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 237 

a taint, every honest mind will be solicitous to be deliv- 
ered ; for, whether the office which allures our fancy be 
for ourselves or for our relatives, the result is the same. 
No man can stand up wholly independent of the hand 
by which he hopes to be fed, or which is in the act of 
feeding his children and relatives. Nor can any man, 
however honest or scrupulous, placed in such situa- 
tion, be positively certain as to his own motive, or know 
whether in such cases his polarity Avith the executive 
be the result of the intrinsic nature and reason of things, 
or whether it be the effect of the influence of those 
metallic strata which unite that executive with the 
centre of his best affections. 

With respect to the degree in which this corruption 
has heretofore or ma}^ hereafter exist, it is impossible 
precisely to estimate ; because the offices in the gift of 
the executive and the departments are so numerous, are 
extended over so wide a surface, — being for the whole 
United States, — and the relations of members of Con- 
gress are so little known to each other and the world, that 
it is not to be expected that we, much less that the people, 
should be able to trace this influence in all its ramifica- 
tions. But one thing is certain, that it exceeds popular 
estimation as much as it evades legislative scrutiny. 
Why, sir, there is annually distributed from the great 
departments an amount not less than five and a half 
millions of dollars, and from the post-office establish- 
ment not less than four and a half millions, making the 
annual agf^regate of ten millions of dollars. All this 
abundant reservoir is distributable annually to its objects, 
in streams of various magnitudes and in ever}^ direction, 
at the executive will. Now, we stand at the very spot 



238 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

when this luscious fountain overflows in all its exuber- 
ance. Having the power, can we promise that we shall 
refrain from turning aside to ourselves and our relatives 
at least a full portion of these pecuniary bounties ? Is 
it in human nature generally to practise so much stoical 
self-denial as a contrary conduct would imply ? I have 
said that it was impossible to prove the full extent of 
the accommodation which we and our relatives may 
obtain in one shape and another out of the treasury, so 
long as such a latitude is given to our capacity to re- 
ceive ; yet, every now and then, some evidence occurs 
tending to give a glimpse of the amount in which the 
transfer of public money may be made to run in partic- 
ular directions. At this moment there lies upon our 
tables an account of the navy agent at Baltimore, who, 
as it appears, under the directions of the then Secretary 
of the Navy, did purchase, in about eighteen months, of 
a single mercantile house in that city, bills of exchange to 
the amount of two hundred and forty thousand dollars, 
the head of which mercantile house was and is a senator 
of the United States, and the brother of that Secretary 
of the Navy. In referring to this subject, I beg to be 
understood as giving no ojoinion on that transaction, or 
as representing it as exceptionable in its nature. I 
adduce it with no other design than to show the extent 
to which relations may, if they please, accommodate one 
another, so long as no constitutional restrictions exist, 
and the impossibility of estimating the amount and of 
pursuing the evil into all its ramifications. 

Upon this subject of offices, my sentiments may, per- 
haps, be too refined for the present condition of human 
nature. And I am aware, in what I am about to say, 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 239" 

that I may run athwart political friends as well as 
political foes. Such considerations as these shall not, 
however, deter me from introducing just and high no- 
tions of their duties to the consideration of the mem- 
bers of the legislature. I hold, sir, the acceptance of 
an office of mere emolument, or which is principally 
emolument, by a member of Congress, from the execu- 
tive, as unworthy his station, and incompatible with 
that high sense of irreproachable character which it is 
one of the choicest terrestrial boons of virtue to attain. 
For while the attainment of office is to members of Con- 
gress the consequence, solely, of coincidence with the 
executive, he who has the office carries on his forehead 
the mark of having fulfilled the condition. And, al- 
though his self-love may denominate his attainment of 
the office to be the reward of merit, the world, which 
usually judges acutely on these matters, will denomi- 
nate it the reward of service. And in such cases, 
ninety-nine times in the hundred, the world will be 
right. An exception to this rule may, perhaps, exist in 
the cases of offices of high responsibility, to Mdiich a 
member of Congress may be called, on account of distin- 
guished and peculiar qualifications ; in which the voice 
of the executive is, in truth, what it ought always to be, 
the voice of his country. Such cases are so rare that, 
when they exist, they make a law for themselves. They 
are exceptions which prove, rather than invalidate, the 
rule. For us, it is honor enough to be thus intrusted 
with the high concerns of this people ; to be thus debat- 
ing ; thus maintaining their liberties, or striving to 
improve their condition. Let us put it out of our power, 
and remove from us the temptation, to grub in the low 
pursuits of avarice and base ambition . 



240 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

Such is the opmion which, in my judgment, ought to 
be entertained of the mere acceptance of office by mem- 
bers of Congress. But as to that other class of persons, 
who are open, notorious sohcitors of office, they give 
occasion to reflections of a very different nature. This 
class of persons, in all times past, have appeared, and 
(for I say nothing of times present), in all times future, 
Avill appear, on this and the other floor of Congress, — 
creatures who, under pretence of serving the people, 
are in fact serving themselves, — creatures who, while 
their distant constituents, good easy men, industrious, 
frugal, and unsuspicious, dream in visions that they are 
laboring for their country's welfare, are in truth spend- 
ing their time mousing at the doors of the j^alace or 
the crannies of the departments, and lajdng low snares 
to catch, for themselves and their relations, every stray 
office that flits by them. For such men, chosen into 
this high and responsible trust, to whom have been con- 
fided the precious destinies of this people, and who thus 
openly abandon their duties, and set their places and 
their consciences to sale, in defiance of the multiplied 
strong and tender ties by which they are bound to their 
country, I have no language to express my contempt. 
I never have seen, and I never shall see, any of these 
notorious solicitors of office for themselves or their rela- 
tions, standing on this or the other floor, bawling and 
bullying, or coming down with dead votes in support of 
executive measures, but I think I see a hacknej^ labor- 
ing for hire in a most degrading service, — a 23oor 
earth-spirited animal, trudging in his traces, with much 
attrition of the sides and induration of the membranes, 
encouraged by this special certainty, that, at the end of 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 241 

his journey, he shall have measured out to him his pro- 
portion of provender. 

But I have heard that the bare suggestion of such 
corruption was a libel upon this House, and upon this 
people. I have heard that we were, in this country, so 
virtuous that we were above the influence of these 
allurements ; that beyond the Atlantic, in old govern- 
ments, such things might be suspected, but that here we 
were too j)ure for such guilt, too innocent for such sus- 
picions. Mr. Chairman, I shall not hesitate, in spite of 
such poj3ular declamation, to believe and follow the evi- 
dence of my senses and the concurrent testimonies of 
contemporaneous beholders. I shall not, in my estima- 
tion of character, degrade this people below, nor exalt 
them far above, the ordinary condition of cultivated 
humanity. And of this be assured, that every system 
of conduct, or course of policy, which has for its basis 
an excess of virtue in this country beyond what human 
nature exhibits in its improved state elsewhere, will be 
found, on trial, fallacious. Is there on this earth any 
collection of men in which exists a more intrinsic, hearty, 
and desperate love of office or place, particularly of fat 
places ? Is there any country more infested than this 
with the vermin that breed in the corruptions of power ? 
Is there any in which place and official emolument more 
certainly follow distinguished servility at elections, or 
base scurrility in the press ? And as to eagerness for 
the reward, what is the fact? Let, now, one of your 
great office-holders, a collector of the customs, a mar- 
shal, a commissioner of loans, a postmaster in one of 
your cities, or any officer, agent, or factor for your ter- 
ritories or public lands, or person holding a place of 

16 



242 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

minor distinction, but of considerable profit, be called 
upon to pay the last great debt of nature. The poor 
man shall hardly be dead, he shall not be cold, long 
before the corpse is in the coffin, the mail shall be 
crowded, to repletion, with letters and certificates, and 
recommendations and representations, and every species 
of sturdy, sycophantic solicitation, by which obtrusive 
mendicity seeks charity or invites compassion. Why, 
sir, we hear the clamor of the craving animals, at the 
treasury trough, here in this capital. Such running, 
such jostling, such wriggling, such clambering over one 
another's backs, such squealing because the tub is so 
narrow and the company so crowded ! No, sir, let us 
not talk of stoical apathy towards the things of the 
national treasury, either in this people or in their Rep- 
resentatives or Senators. 

But it will be asked, for it has been asked. Shall the 
executive be suspected of corrupting the national legis- 
lature ? Is he not virtuous ? Without making personal 
distinctions or references, for the sake of argument it 
may be admitted that all executives for the time being 
are virtuous, — reasonably virtuous, Mr. Chairman, — 
flesh and blood notwithstanding. And without meaning, 
in this place, to cast any j)articular reflections upon this 
or upon any other executive, this I will say, that if no 
additional guards are provided, and now after the spirit 
of party has brought into so full activity the spirit of 
patronage, there never will be a President of these 
United States, elected by means now in use, who, if he 
deals honestly with himself, will not be able, on quitting, 
to address his presidential chair as John Falstaff ad- 
dressed Prince Hal: "Before I knew thee, I knew 



SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 243 

nothing, and now I am but little better than one of 
the wicked." The possession of that station, under the 
reign of party, will make a man so acquainted with the 
corrupt principles of human conduct, he will behold our 
nature in so hungry and shivering and craving a state, 
and be compelled so constantly to observe the solid 
rewards daily demanded by way of compensation for 
outrageous patriotism, that, if he escape out of that 
atmosphere without partaking of its corruption, he 
must be below or above the ordinary condition of mor- 
tal nature. Is it possible, sir, that he should remain 
altogether uninfected? What is the fact? The Con- 
stitution prohibits the members of this and of the other 
branch of the legislature from being electors of the 
President of the United States. Yet what is done ? 
The practice of late is so prevalent as to have grown 
almost into a sanctioned usage party. Prior to the presi- 
dential term of four years, members of Congress, having 
received the privileged ticket of admission, assemble 
themselves, in a sort of electoral college, on the floor of 
the Senate or of the House of Representatives. They 
select a candidate for the presidency. To their voice, 
to their influence, he is indebted for his elevation. So 
long as this condition of things continues, what ordinary 
executive will refuse to accommodate those who, in so 
distinguished a manner, have accommodated him ? Is 
there a better reason, in the world, why a man should 
give you, Mr. Chairman, an office worth two or three 
thousand dollars a year, for which you are qualified, 
,and which he could give as well as not, than this, that 
you had been greatly instrumental in giving him one, 
worth five and twenty thousand, for which he was 



244 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 

equally qualified ? It is in vain to conceal it. So long 
as the present condition of things continues, it may rea- 
sonably be expected that there shall take place regularly, 
between the President of the United States and a por- 
tion of both Houses of Congress, an interchange, strictly 
speaking, of good offices. 

The principle for which I contend, and which is the 
basis both of the original amendment and of my prop- 
osition, is this : Put it out of the power of the executive 
to seem to pay any of the members of Congress, by 
putting it out of their power to receive. " Avoid the ap- 
pearance of evil." We have been taught to pray, " Lead 
us not into temptation." They who rightly estimate 
their duties may find in public life no less necessity 
than in private life frequently to repeat this aspiration. 



SPEECH 



ON THE PROPOSITION TO REVIVE AND ENFORCE 
THE NON-INTERCOURSE LAW AGAINST GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

Feb. 25, 1811. 



SPEECH 

ON THE PROPOSITION TO REVIVE AND ENFORCE THE 
NON-INTERCOURSE LAW AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN. 

Feb, 25, 1811. 



[The non-intercourse with England and France which had 
been enacted at the time of the repeal of the embargo, expired 
by its own limitation in May, 1810. It was then enacted that 
in case either of the belligerent powers should revoke their acts 
hostile to American neutrality, the fact should be announced by 
proclamation, and, unless the other belligerent should do the 
same within three months, the non-intercourse should revive as 
to the contumacious nation. Bonapaite, professing to be satis- 
fied with the act of May, informed General Armstrong, the 
American minister, that he had revoked the Berlin and Milan 
decrees, and that the revocation would take effect on the 1st of 
November, provided England did the same by her Orders in 
Council. Mr. Madison, in his eagerness to escaj^e from the 
political perplexities in wiiich he was involved, issued his procla- 
mation on the 2d of November, declaring the non-intercourse 
at an end, without waiting to see whether England would or 
would not revoke her Orders in Couucil, which was the condi- 
tion precedent of Bonaparte's revocation of his decrees. It so 
happened that England would do nothing of the kind, so that 
Mr. Madison had the mortification of informing the nation of 
this fact by proclamation of the date of Feb. 2, 1811. As 
there was some doubt as to whether non-intercourse with Eng- 
land could be legally revived under the law of May, inasmuch 
as the ijroclamation of November had been issued without wait- 



248 SPEECH ON 

ing for the action of England in the premises, it was thought 
best to re-enact non-intercourse as to her. It was on this bill that 
Mr. Quincy made the following speech. Bonaparte, it may 
be well to say, had not merely seized and confiscated all the 
American ships and cargoes he could lay his hands on dur- 
ing the non-intercourse of 1809, but continued to do so even 
after the President's proclamation of November had arrived in 
France ; while he utterly refused to make compensation for any 
of his seizures. This, he vouchsafed to explain, was merely done 
to insure our enforcement of the non-intercourse with England. 
— Ed.] 

Mr. Speaker, — The amendments contained in the 
sections under consideration contemplate the continu- 
ance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law. 
This proj)osition presents a great, an elevated, and 
essential topic of discussion, due to the occasion and 
claimed by this people, which comprehend within the 
sphere and analogies of just argument the chief of those 
questions, the decision of which at this day involves the 
peace, the happiness, and honor of this nation. What- 
ever has a tendency to show that, if the system of non- 
intercourse exist, it ought not to be continued, or that, if 
it do not exist, it ought not to be revived ; whatever has 
a tendency to prove that we are under no obligation to 
persist in it, or under an obligation to abandon it, — is 
now within the fair range of debate. 

After long delay and much coy demeanor, the admin- 
istration of this country have condescended to develop 
their policy. Though they have not spoken to our 
mortal ears with their fleshly tongues, yet they have 
whispered their puiposes through the constituted organs 
of this House ; and these are the features of the policy 



NON-INTEECOUESE WITH J3NGLAND. 249 

which they recommend : It is proposed to grant partic- 
ular and individual relief from anticipated oppressions 
of the commercial restrictive system ; it is proposed to 
perpetuate that system indefinitely, and leave our citi- 
zens still longer subject to its embarrassments, its uncer- 
tainty, and its terrors. The chairman of our Committee 
of Foreign Relations [Mr. Eppes], at the time he intro- 
duced these amendments to the House, exhibited the 
true character of this policy, when he told us that it was 
" modelled upon the principle not to turn over to the 
judiciary the decision of the existence of the non-inter- 
course law, but to make it the subject of legislative 
declaration." In other words, it is found that the 
majority of this House have too much policy to deny, 
and too much principle to assert, that the fact on which, 
and on which alone, the President of the United States 
was authorized to issue his proclamation of the 2d of 
November last has occurred. A scheme has, therefore, 
been devised by which, without any embarrassment on 
this intricate point, the continuance and enforcement of 
non-intercourse may be insured, and toils, acceptable 
to France, woven by the hands of our own administra- 
tion, spread over almost the only remaining avenue of 
our commercial hope. 

The proposition contained in these amendments has 
relation to the most momentous and most elevated of 
our legislative obligations. We are not now about to 
discuss the policy by which a princely pirate may be 
persuaded to relinquish his plunder ; nor yet the expec- 
tation entertained of relaxation in her belligerent system 
of a haughty and perhaps jealous rival ; nor yet the faith 
which we owe to a treacherous tyrant ; nor yet the fond 



250 . SPEECH ON 

but frail hopes of favors from a British regency, melting 
into our arms in the honeymoon of power. The obliga- 
tions which claim our observance are of a nature much 
more tender and imperious, — the obligations which, as 
representatives, we owe to our constituents ; the alle- 
giance by which we are bound to the American people ; 
the obedience which is due to that solemn faith by 
which we are pledged to protect their peace, their pros- 
perity, and tlieir honor. All these high considerations 
are materially connected with this policy. 

It is not ray intention, Mr. Speaker, to dilate on the 
general nature and effects of this commercial restrictive 
system. It is no longer a matter of speculation. We 
have no need to resort for illustration of its nature to 
the twilight lustre of history, nor yet to the vibrating 
brightness of the human intellect. We have experience 
of its effects. They are above, around, and beneath us. 
They paralyze the enterprise of your cities ; they sicken 
the industry of your fields ; they deprive the laborer 
and the mechanic of his employment ; they subtract 
from the husbandman and planter the just reward 
for that product which he has moistened with the sweat 
of his brow ; they crush individuals in the ruins of their 
most flattering hopes, and shake the deep-rooted fabric 
of general prosperity. 

It will, however, be necessary to say a word on the 
general nature of this system, not so much for the pur- 
pose of elucidating, as to clear the way, and give dis- 
tinctness to the course of my argument. It will also be 
useful to deprive the advocates of this system of those 
colors and popular lures to which the}' resort on a sub-- 
ject in no way connected with the objects with which 
they associate it. 



NON-INTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 251 

My argument proceeds upon the assumption of the 
irrelevancy of four topics usually adduced in support of 
the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and of 
March, 1809, commonly called the Non-intercourse Sys- 
tem. I take for granted that it is not advantageous ; in 
other words, that it is injurious ; that it is not fiscal in 
its nature, nor protective of manufactures, nor comjDC- 
tent to coerce either belligerent. That it is injurious is 
certain, not only because it is deprecated by that part of 
the community which it directly affects, but because no 
man advocates it as a permanent system, and every one 
declares his desire to be rid of it. Fiscal it cannot be, 
because it prohibits commerce and consequently revenue, 
and, by the high price and great demand for foreign 
articles which it produces, encourages smuggling. Pro- 
tective of manufactures it cannot be, because it is indis- 
criminate in its provisions and uncertain in its duration ; 
and this uncertainty depends, not on our legislative dis- 
cretion, but on the caprice of foreign powers, — our 
enemies or rivals. No commercial system which is in- 
discriminate in its restrictions can be generally protec- 
tive to manufactures. It may give a forced vivacity to 
a few particular manufactures ; but in all countries 
some, and in this almost all, manufactures depend either 
for instruments or materials on foreign supply. But, if 
this w^ere not the case, a system whose continuance 
depended upon the will or the ever-varying policy of 
foreign nations can never offer such an inducement to 
the capitalist as will encourage him to make extensive 
investments in establishments resting on such precarious 
foundations. As to the incompetency of this system to 
coerce either belligerent, I take that for granted, because 



252 SPEECH ON 

no man, as far as I recollect, ever pretended it ; at least, 
no man ever did show, by any analj-sis or detailed 
examination of its relative effects on us and either bel- 
ligerent, that it would necessarily coerce either out of that 
policy which it was proposed to counteract. Embargo 
had its friends. There were those who had a confidence 
in its success ; but who was ever the friend of non- 
intercourse ? Who ever pretended to believe in its 
efficacy ? The embargo had a known origin, and the 
features of its character were distinct. But " where 
and what was this execrable shape, if shape it may be 
called, which shape has none ? " We all know that the 
non-intercourse was not the product of any prospective 
intelligence. It was the result of the casual concurrence 
of chaotic opinions. It was agreed upon because the 
majority could agree upon nothing else. They who 
introduced it abjured it ; they who advocated it did not 
wish, and scarcely knew, its use. And now that it is 
said to be extended over us, no man in this nation, who 
values his reputation, will take his Bible oath that it is 
in effectual and legal operation. There is an old riddle 
on a coffin, which, I presume, we all learnt when we 
were boys, that is as perfect a representation of the 
origin, progress, and present state of this thing, called 
non-intercourse, as is possible to be conceived. 

" There was a man bespoke a thing, 
Which when the maker home did bring, 
That same maker did refuse it ; 
The man that spoke for it did not use it, 
And he who had it did not know 
Whetlier he had it, — yea or no." 

True it is that if this non-intercourse shall ever be, in 
reality, extended over us, the similitude will fail in a 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 253 

material point. The poor tenant of the coffin is igno- 
rant of his state ; but the poor people of the United 
States will be literally buried alive in non-intercourse, 
and realize the grave closing on themselves and their 
hopes with a full and cruel consciousness of all the 
horrors of their condition. 

For these reasons I put all such commonplace topics 
out of the field of debate. This, then, is the state of 
my argument, that as this non -intercourse system is not 
fiscal, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to 
coerce, and is injurious, it ought to be abandoned, unless 
we are bound to persist in it by imperious obligations. 
My object will be to show that no such obligations 
exist ; that the present is a favorable opportunity, not to 
be suffered to escape, totally to relinquish it ; that it is 
time to manage our own commercial concerns according 
to our own interests, and no longer put them into the 
keeping of those who hate or those who envy their 
prosperity ; that we are the constituted shepherds, and 
ought no more to transfer our custody to the wolves. 

It is agreed on all sides that it is desirable to abandon 
this commercial restrictive system ; but the advocates of 
the measures now proposed say that we cannot abandon 
it, because our faith is plighted. Yes, sir, our faith is 
plighted, and that, too, to that scrupulous gentleman. 
Napoleon, a gentleman so distinguished for his own 
regard of faith, for his kindness and mercies towards us, 
for angelic whiteness of moral character, for overween- 
ing affection for the American people and their pros- 
perity. Truly, sir, it is not to be questioned but that 
our faith should be a perfect work towards this paragon 
of purity. On account of our faith plighted to him, it 
is proposed to continue this non-intercourse. 



254 SPEECH OF 

But, Mr. Speaker, we may be allowed, I presume, to 
inquire whether any such faith be plighted. I trust we 
are yet freemen. We are not yet so far sunk in servility 
that we are forbidden to examine into the grounds of our 
national obligations. Under a belief that this is per- 
mitted, I shall enter uj)on the task, and inquire whence 
they arise, and what is their nature. 

Whence they arise is agreed. Our obligations result, 
if any exist, under the act of May 1, 1810, called " An 
Act concerning the commercial intercourse between 
the United States and Great Britain and France and 
their dependencies, and for other purposes." It remains, 
therefore, to inquire into the character of this act, and 
the obligations arising under its provisions. 

Before, however, I proceed, I would premise that 
while I am doubtful whether I shall obtain, I am sure 
that the nature of my argument deserves, the favor and 
prepossession for its success of every member in the 
House. My object is to show that the obligation which 
we owe to the people of the United States is a free and 
unrestricted commerce. The object of those who advo- 
cate these measures is to show that the obligation we 
owe to Napoleon Bonaparte is a commerce restricted 
and enslaved. Now, as much as our allegiance is due 
more to the people of the United States than it is to 
Napoleon Bonaparte, just so much ought my argument 
to be received by an American Congress with more 
favor and prepossession than the argument of those who 
advocate these measures. It is my intention to make 
my course of reasoning as precise and distinct as possi- 
ble, because I invite scrutiny. I contend for my country 
according to my conscientious conceptions of its best 



NON-INTEECOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 255 

» 

interests. If there be fallacy, detect it. My invitation 
is given to generous disputants. As to your stump 
orators, who utter low invective, and mistake it for wit, 
and gross personality, and pass it off for argument, I 
descend not to their level, nor recognize their power to 
injure, nor even to offend. 

Whatever obligations are incumbent upon this nation 
in consequence of the act of the 1st of May, 1810, 
they result from the following section: ^'- And he it fur- 
ther enacted, That in case either Great Britain or France 
shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or 
modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the 
neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the 
President of the United States shall declare by procla- 
mation, and if the other nation shall not within three 
months thereafter so revoke or modify her edicts in like 
manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 
eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act 
entitled ' An Act to interdict the commercial intercourse 
between the United States and Great Britain and France 
and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' shall, 
from and after the expiration of three months fiom the 
date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have 
full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions, 
colonies, and dependencies of the nation thus refusing 
or neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts in man- 
ner aforesaid. And the restrictions imposed by this 
act shall, from the date of such proclamation, cease and 
be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or 
modifying her decrees in the manner aforesaid." 

Divested of technical expression, this is the abstract 
form of this section : It provides that a new commercial 



256 SPEECH ON 

condition shall result on the occurrence of a specified 
fact, which fact the President shall declare. On this 
state of the subject, I observe that nothing in the act 
indicates whether the object of the United States in 
providing for this eventual commercial condition was its 
own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, or whether it was 
in the nature of a proffer to foreign nations. It will, 
however, be agreed on all sides that the object was 
either the one or the other. If the object were our 
own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, it will not be 
pretended that we are under any obligation to continue 
the system ; for that which was adopted solely for either 
of these ends may, whenever our views concerning them 
vary, be abandoned, it being the concern of no other. 
But it is said that the act was, in truth, a proffer to the 
two belligerents of commerce to the obsequious nation, 
prohibition of commerce to the contumacious nation. 
If this were the case, I shall agree, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that it ought to be fulfilled to the full extent of 
the terms. But, inasmuch as there is in the terms of the 
act no indication of such a proffer, it follows that its 
nature must arise from the circumstances of the case, 
and that the whole of the obligation, whatever it is, 
grows out of an honorable understanding, and nothing 
else. As such, I admit, it should be honorably fulfilled. 
The nature of this proffer is that of a proposition upon 
terms. Now, what I say is, and.it is the foundation of 
my argument, that whoever claims an honorable com- 
pliance with such a proposition must be able to show 
on his part an honorable acceptance and fulfilment of 
the terms. The terms our act proposed were an act to 
be done, an effect to be produced. The act to be done 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 257 

was the revocation or modification of tlie edicts. The 
effect to be produced was, that this revocation or modi- 
fication should be such as that these edicts should " cease 
to violate our neutral commerce." Now the questions 
which result are, Has the act been done ? If done, has 
it been so done as to amount to an honorable fulfilment 
or acceptance of our terms ? The examination of these 
two points will explain the real situation of these United 
States, and the actual state of their obligations. 

In considering the question whether the fact of revo- 
cation or modification has occurred, it is unfortunate 
that it does involve, at least in popular estimation, the 
propriety of the proclamation, issued on the 2d of No- 
vember last by the President of the United States. I 
regret as much as any one that such is the state of 
things that the question whether a foreign despot has 
done a particular act seems necessarily to be connected 
with the question concerning the prudence or perspicac- 
ity with which our own Chief Magistrate has done an- 
other act. I say in popular estimation these subjects 
seem so connected. I do not think that, in the estima- 
tion of wise and reflecting men, they are necessarilj^ 
thus connected ; for the fact might not have occurred 
precisely in the form contemplated by the act of May, 
1810 ; and yet the President of the United States, in 
issuing his proclamation, might be either justifiable or 
excusable. It might be justifiable. A power intrusted 
to a politician, to be used on the occurrence of a partic- 
ular event, for the purpose of obtaining a particular 
end, he may sometimes be justifiable in using in a case 
which may not be precisely that originally contemplated. 
It may be effectually, though not formally, the same. 

17 



258 SPEECH ON 

It may be equally efficient in attaining the end. In 
such case a politician never will, and perhaps ought not 
to, hesitate at taking the responsibility which arises 
from doing the act in a case not coming within the 
verbal scope of his authority. Thus, in the present 
instance, the President of the United States might 
have deemed the terms, in the letter of the Duke of 
Cadore, such as gave a reasonable expectation of accept- 
ance on the part of Great Britain. He has taken the 
responsibility ; he has been deceived. Neither Great 
Britain accepts the terms, nor France performs her en- 
gagements. The proclamation might thus have been 
wise, though unfortunate in its result ; and as to excuse 
will it be said that there is nothing of the sort in this 
case ? Why, sir, our administration saw France by 
Napoleon's confession, over head and ears in love with 
the American people. At such a sight as this was it 
to be expected of flesh and blood that they should hesi- 
tate to plunge into a sea of bliss, and indulge in joy 
with such an amorous cyprian ? 

But whether the fact has occurred on which alone 
this proclamation could have legally issued is a material 
inquiry, and cannot be evaded, let it reach where or 
whom it will ; for with this is connected the essential 
condition of this country ; on this depends the multi- 
plied rights of our fellow-citizens, whose property has 
been, or may be, seized or confiscated under this law ; 
and hence result our obligations, if anj-, as is pretended, 
exist. It is important here to observe that, according 
to the terms of the act of May 1, 1810, the law of 
March 1, 1809, revives on the occurrence of the fact 
required, and not on the proclamation issued. If the 



NON-INTEECOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 259 

fact had not occurred, the proclamation is a dead letter, 
and no subsequent performance of the required fact by 
either belligerent can retroact so as to give validity to the 
previous proclamation. The course required by the act 
of the 1st of May, 1810, unquestionably is, that the fact 
required to be done should be precedent, in point of 
time, to the right accruing to issue the proclamation ; 
and of consequence that by no construction can any 
subsequent performance of the fact required operate 
backward to supjDort a proclamation issued previous to 
the occurrence of that fact. Whenever this fact is really 
done, a new proclamation is required to comply with the 
provisions of the act, and to give efficacy to them. I 
am the more particular, in referring to this necessary 
construction resulting from the terms of the act of the 
1st of May last, because it is very obvious that a differ- 
ent opinion did, until very lately, and probably does 
now, prevail on this floor. We all recollect Avhat a 
state of depression the conduct of Bonaparte, in seizing 
our vessels subsequent to the 1st of November, pro- 
duced as soon as it was known in this House, and what 
a sudden joy was lighted up in it when the news of the 
arrival of a French minister was communicated. Great 
hopes were entertained and expressed that he would 
bring some formal revocation of his edicts or disavowal 
of the seizures, which might retroact and support the 
proclamation. It was confidently expected that some 
explanation, at least, of these outrages would be con- 
tained in his portmanteau ; that, under his powder-puff 
or in his snuff-box, some dust would be found to throw 
into the eyes of the American people, which might so 
far blind the sense as to induce them to acquiesce in the 



260 SPEECH ON 

enforcement of the non-intercourse, without any very- 
scrupulous scrutiny into the performance of the condi- 
tions by Bonaparte. But, alas, sir ! the minister is as 
parsimonious as his master is voracious. He has not 
condescended to extend one particle, not one pinch, of 
comfort to the administration. From any thing in the 
messages of our President, it would not be so much as 
known that such a blessed vision as was this new envoy 
had saluted his eyes. His communications preserve an 
ominous silence on the topic. Administration, after all 
their hopes, have been compelled to resort to the old 
specific, and have caused to be tipped up on our tables a 
cart-load of sand, grit, and sawdust, from our meta- 
physical mechanic, who see-saws at St. James as they 
pull the wire here in Washington. Yes, sir : a letter, 
written on the tenth day of December last by our min- 
ister in London, is seriously introduced, to prove by ab- 
stract reasoning that the Berlin and Milan decrees had 
ceased to exist on the first of the preceding November, 
of whose existence, as late as the 25th of last December, 
we have, as far as tlie nature of things permit, ocular, 
auricular, and tangible demonstration. And the people 
of this country are invited to believe the logic of Mr. 
Pinkney, in the face of the fact of a continued seizure 
of all the vessels which came within the grasp of the 
French custom-house, from the 1st of November down 
to the date of our last accounts ; and in defiance of the 
declaration of our charge -d'affaires^ made on the 10th 
of December, that " it will not be pretended that the 
decrees have, in fact, been revoked ; " and in utter dis- 
credit of the allegation of the Duke of Massa, made 
on the 25th of the same month, which in effect declares 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 261 

the Berlin and Milan decrees exist, by declaring " that 
they sluiU remain suspended." After such evidence as 
this the question whether a revocation or modification of 
the edicts of France has so occurred " as that they cease 
to violate the neutral commerce of the United States " 
does no longer depend upon the subtleties of syllogistic 
skill, nor is to be disproved by any power of logical 
illation. It is an affair of sense and feeling. And our 
citizens — whose property has been since the 1st of 
November uniformly seized, and of which they are avow- 
edl}' to be deprived three months, and which is then 
only to be returned to them on the condition of good 
behavior — may as soon be made to believe by the teach- 
ing philosophy that their rights are not violated, as a 
wretch writhing under the lash of the executioner might 
be made by a course of reasoning to believe that the 
natural state of his flesh was not violated, and that his 
shoulders, out of which blood was flowing at every 
stroke, were in the quiet enjoyment of cuticular ease. 

Whether the revocation expressed in the letter of the 
Duke of Cadore was absolute or conditional, or whether 
the conditions were precedent or subsequent, in the 
present state of our evidence it seems scarcely important 
to inquire. Yet the construction of that celebrated pas- 
sage in his letter of the 6th of August has been, as far 
as I have ever seen, given so much in the manner of 
lawyers and so little in that of statesmen, that it deserves 
a short elucidation. All the illustration of that letter 
in the documents is drawn from the form and the force 
of its technical expressions, — how much the words, " it 
being understood that," in their particular position, are 
worth ; and whether they have the efl"ect of a condition 



262 SPEECH ON 

precedent or of a condition subsequent. A statesman 
will look at the terms contained in that letter in a dif- 
ferent aspect, — not for the jjurpose of ascertaining how 
much a court of law might be able to make of them, but 
to discern in what position of language the writer in- 
tended to intrench himself, and to penetrate his real 
policy, notwithstanding the veil in which he chose to 
envelop it. He will consider the letter in connection 
with the general course of French policy, and the par- 
ticular circumstances which produced it. By these 
lights, it is scarcely possible to mistake the character 
and true construction of these expressions. Upon recur- 
ring to the Berlin and Milan decrees, it will be found 
that they contain a solemn pledge that " they shall con- 
tinue to be vigorously in force, as long as that (the 
English)- government does not return to the principle of 
the law of nations." Their determination to support 
this pledge the French government has uniformly and 
undeviatingly declared. They have told us constantly 
that they required a previous revocation on the part of 
Great Britain as the condition of their rescinding those 
edicts. The question, who should first revoke their 
edicts, had come to be, notoriously, a sort of point of 
honor between the two belligerents. Perfectly ac- 
quainted with this state of things, we have been perpet- 
ually negotiating between the one and the other, and 
contending with each that it was his duty previously to 
revoke. At length, the French government — either 
tired with our solicitations, or, more probably, seeing 
their own advantage in our anxiety to get rid of these 
decrees, which yet, as an essential part of its continental 
S3'stem of total commercial exclusion, it never intended 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. , 263 

to abandon — devised this scheme of policy, which has 
been the source of so much contest, and has puzzled all 
the metaph3'sicians in England and the United States. 
Cadore is directed to say to Mr. Armstrong, " In this 
new stale of things, I am authorized to declare to you 
sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, 
and that, after the 1st of November, they will cease to 
have effect ; it being understood that, in consequence of 
this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in 
Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade 
which they have wished to establish ; or that the 
United States, conformably to the act you have just 
communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected 
by the English." In this curious gallimaufry of time 
present and time future, of doing and refraining to do, 
of declaration and understanding, of English duties and 
American duties, it is easy to trace the design and see 
its adaptation to the past and present polic}^ of the French 
Emperor. The time present was used, because the act 
of the United States required that previously to procla- 
mation the edicts " shall be " revoked. And this is the 
mighty mystery of time present being used in express- 
ing an act intended to be done in time future. For if, 
as the order of time and the state of intention indicated, 
time future had been used, and the letter of Cadore 
had said the decrees shall be revoked on the 1st of 
November next, then the proclamation could not be 
issued, because the President would be obliged to wait 
to have evidence that the act had been effectually done. 
Now, as the French Emperor never intended that it 
should be effectuated, and yet meant to have all the 
advantage of an effectual deed without performing it, 



264 SPEECH ON 

this notable scheme was invented. And, by French 
finesse and American acquiescence, a thing is considered 
as eifectually done if the declaration that it is done be 
made in language of time present, notwithstanding the 
time of performance is in the same breath declared to 
be in time future. Having thus secured the concur- 
rence of the American administration, the next part of 
the scheme was so to arrange the expression that either 
the British government should not accede, or, if it did 
accede, that it should secure to France the point of 
honor, — a previous revocation by the British ; and, if 
they did not accede, that there should be a color for 
seizures and sequestrations, and thus still farther to 
bind the Americans over to their good behavior. All 
this is attained by this well-devised expression, " It 
being understood that, in consequence of this declara- 
tion, the English shall revoke." Now Great Britain 
either would accede to the terms, or she would not. 
If she did, and did it, as the terms required, in conse- 
quence of this declaration, then it must be done previous 
to the 1st of November, and then the point of honor 
was saved to France ; so that thus France by a revoca- 
tion verbally present, effectually future, would attain 
an effectual, previous revocation from the English. 
But if, as France expected, Great Britain would not 
trust in such paper security, and therefore not revoke 
previously to the 1st of November, then an apology 
might be found for France to justify her in refusing to 
effectuate that present, future, absolute, conditional 
revocation. And if ever the Duke of Cadore shall con- 
descend, which, it is probable he never will, to reason 
with our government on the subject, he may tell them 



NON-INTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 265 

that they knew that the French Emperor had issued 
tliose decrees, upon the pledge that they AA^ere to con- 
tinue until the British abandoned their maritime prin- 
ciples ; that he told us, over and over and over again, 
tliat previous revocation by the British Avas absolutely 
required : that for the purpose of putting to trial the 
sincerity of the British, he had indeed declared that the 
French decrees " are revoked " on the first day of 
November ensuing, but then it Avas on the expressed 
condition that in consequence of that declaration, — not 
of the revocation, but of that declaration, — the British 
Avere to revoke, and, if they did not, the " understand- 
ing " AA^as not realized, and his rights of enforcing his 
S3'stera remained to him. And I confess I do not Avell 
see AAdiat answer can be made to such an argument. 
Let us examine the case in common life. You, Mr. 
Speaker, have tAvo separate tracts of land, each lying 
behind the farms of A and B, so that you cannot get 
to one of the tracts without going over the farm of A, 
nor to the other tract without going over the farm of B. 
For some cause or other, both A and B have a mutual 
interest that you should enjoy the right of passage to 
your tract over the farm of each respectivel}'. A and 
B get into quarrels and wish to invoh'e you in the dis- 
pute. You keep aloof, but are perpetually negotiating 
AA'ith each for your old right of passage-way, and telling 
each that it is owing to him that the other prohibits 
your enjoyment of it. At last A says, " Come. We 
Avill put this B to trial. I, on this fifth day of August, 
declare my prohibitions of passage-Avay are revoked, 
and after the first day of November my prohibitions 
shall cease to haA^e effect ; but it is understood that B, 



266 SPEECH ON 

ill consequence of this declaration, shall also revoke his 
prohibition of passage-way." If B refuses, does A, 
under the circumstances of such a declaration, violate 
any obligation should he refuse to permit the passage ? 
Might not A urge, with great color and force of argu- 
ment, that this arrangement was the effect of your 
solicitation and assurance that B would be tempted 
by such a proffer, and that the revocation of B was re- 
quired, by the terms, to be the consequence of A's decla- 
ration, for the ver}" purpose of indicating that it must 
be anterior to the fact of A's effectual revocation. But, 
let this be as it will, suppose that you, on the 1st of 
November, in consequence of A's assurances, had sent 
your servants and teams to bring home your products, 
and A should seize your oxen and teams and products, 
and drive your servants, after having stripped them, 
from his farm, and should tell you that he should keep 
this, and all other property of yours on which he can 
lay his hands, for three months, and then he should 
restore it to you or not as he saw fit, according to his 
opinion of your good behavior, — I ask if, in any sense, 
you could truly say that on the first day of November 
the prohibitions or edicts of A were so revoked that 
they ceased to violate your liberty of passage. Sir, 
when viewed in relation to common life, the idea is 
so absurd that it would be absolutelj' insulting to ask 
the question. I refer the decision of so simple a case 
to the sound sense of the American peoj^le, and not to 
that of ' scurvy politicians, who seem to see the things 
they do not.' In a condensed form my argument is this. 
From a revocation merely verbal, no obligations result. 
By tlie terms of our act the revocation must be effectual, 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 267 

" SO as the edict shall cease to violate our rights." Now 
the simple question is, whether an uniform seizure, since 
the 1st of November, under those edicts (for none other 
are pretended) of all their property, and holding it for 
three months to see how they will behave, be or be 
not a violation of the rights of the American people. 
In relation to the revival by a formal declaration of the 
non-intercourse system, as is proposed in one of these 
sections, I offer this argtnnent. Either the fact on 
which the President's proclamation coujd alone have 
been issued has occurred, or it has not. If it have 
occurred, then the law of March, 1809, is revived, and 
this provision for its revival by a declarative law is 
unnecessary. If it have not occurred, then there is no 
obligation to revive it, for alone on the occurrence of 
the specified fact does our obligation depend. In such 
case the revival by declaration is a mere gratuity to 
Napoleon. This is, in fact, the true character of the 
law. As to the provisions for relief of our merchants 
against anticipated seizure, I hold them scarcely deserv- 
ing consideration. Heaven be praised ! we have inde- 
pendent tribunals and intelligent juries. Our judges 
are not corrupt, and our yeomanry will not be swayed, 
in their decisions, by the hope of presidential favors, 
nor be guided by party influence. The harpies of 3'our 
custom-house dare as soon eat off their own claws, as 
thrust them in the present state of the law of March, 
1809, into the fatness of their fellow-citizens. The 
timorous and light-shunning herd of spies and informers 
have too much instinct to pounce on such a prey. 

But, in order to cause any obligation to result under 
the law of May 1, 1810, it is necessary, not only that 



268 SPEECH ON 

the fact required be done, and the effect required pro- 
duced, but also the terms of that act must be accepted. 
The proffer we made, if such be the character of that 
act, was only to revive the non-intercourse law against 
the contumacious belligerent, after three months had 
expired from the date of the proclamation. Now it is 
remarkable that, so far from accepting the terms of the 
proposition contained in our act as the extent of our 
obligations, Bonaparte expressly tells us that he under- 
stands that they mean something else ; and something, 
too, that no man in this House will dare to aver they 
reall}- intend. It is also remarkable that the terms of 
this celebrated letter from the Duke of Cadore, of the 
5th of August, which have been represented as a relax- 
ation in the rigor of the French Emperor's policy, are in 
fact something worse than the original terms of the 
Milan decree, and that, instead of having obtained a 
boon from a friend in this boasted letter, our adminis- 
tration have only caught a gripe from a Tartar. By the 
terms of the Milan decree, it was to " cease with respect 
to all nations who compelled the English to respect their 
flag." By the terms of the letter of Cadore, it was to 
cease on condition that the United States " cause their 
rights to be respected." Now, as much as an obligation 
of an indefinite extent is worse than a definite obliga- 
tion, just so much worse are the terms of the letter of 
Cadore than the original terms of the Milan decree. 
Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived concerning the policy 
of the French Emperor. It is stern, unrelenting, and 
unrelaxing. So far from any deviation from his original 
system being indicated in this letter of the Duke of Cadore, 
a strict adherence to it is formally and carefully expressed. 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 269 

Ever since the commencement of " his continental sys- 
tem," as it is called, the policy of Napoleon has uniformly 
been to oblige the United States to effectual co-opera- 
tion in that system. As early as the 7th of October, 
1807, his minister, Champagny, wrote to General Arm- 
strong that the interests of all maritime powers were 
common to unite in support of their rights against Eng- 
land. After this followed the embargo which co-oper- 
ated effectually, at the very critical moment, in his great 
plan of continental commercial restriction. On the 24th 
of the ensuing November, he resorts to the same lan- 
guage, " In violating the rights of all nations, England 
has united them all by a common interest, and it is for 
them to have recourse to force against her." He then 
proceeds to invite the United States to take with the 
whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself from her 
injustice," and "in forcing her to a peace." On the 
15th of January, 1808, he is somewhat more pointed and 
positive as to our efficient concurrence in his plan of 
policy. For his minister, Champagny, then tells us that 
" his Majest}^ has no doubt of a declaration of war 
against England by the United States," and he then 
proceeds to take the trouble of declaring war out of our 
hands, and volunteers his services gratuitously to declare 
it in our name and behalf. " War exists, then, in fact 
between England and the United States ; and his Maj- 
esty considers it as declared from the day on which 
England published her decrees." And, in order to 
make assurance doubly sure, he sequesters our vessels 
in his ports " until a decision may be had on the dis- 
positions to be expressed by the United States " on his 
proposition of considering themselves " associated in the 



270 SPEECH ON 

cause of all the powers " against England. Now in all 
this there is no deception, and can be no mistake, as to 
the purpose of his policy. He tells us, as plain as lan- 
guage can speak, that " by causing our rights to be re- 
spected," he means war, on his side, against Great 
Britain ; that " our interests are common ; " that he con- 
siders us already " associates in the war ; " and that he 
sequesters our propert}^ by way of security for our dis- 
positions. This is his old policy. I pray some gentle- 
man on the other side of the House to point out in what 
it differs from the new. The letter of Cadore on the 
5th of August tells us it is expected that we " cause 
our rights to be respected in conformity to our act," 
and the same letter also tells us what he understands to 
be the meaning of our act, — "In short Congress en- 
gages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent 
powers which shall refuse to acknowledge the rights of 
neutrals." In other words, " by causing our rights to 
be respected " he means war on his side against Great 
Britain. In perfect conformity with this uniform, unde- 
viating policy, his minister, Turreau, tells our govern- 
ment, in his letter of the 28th of November last, that 
" the modifications to be given to the present absolute 
exclusion of our products will not depend upon the 
chance of events, but will be the result of measures, 
firm and pursued with perseverance, Avhich the two 
governments will continue to adopt, to withdraw, from 
the monopoly and from the vexations of the common 
enemy, a commerce loyal and necessary to France, as 
well as the United States." And to the end that no 
one feature of his policy should be changed, or even 
appear to be relaxed, his Excellency the Duke of Massa, 



NON-TNTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 271 

and his Excellency the Duke of Gaetta, m then- respec- 
tive letters of the 25th of December, declare that the 
property taken shall be " only sequestered until the 
United States have fulfilled their engagements to cause 
their rights to be respected." Now, JNIr. Speaker, is 
there a man in this House bold enough to maintain, or 
with capacity enough to point out, any material varia- 
tion between the policy of France to this country sub- 
sequent to the Cadore letter of the 5th of August, and 
its policy anterior to that period. The character of the 
policy is one and indivisible. Bonaparte has not yielded 
one inch to our administration. Now, as he has neither 
performed the act required by the law of May, 1810 ; 
nor produced the effect ; nor accepted the terms it pro- 
posed, — whence arise our obligations? How is our 
faith plighted ? In what way are we bound again to 
launch our country into this dark sea of restrictions, 
surrounded on all sides with perils and penalties ? 

The true nature of this Cadore policy is alone to be 
discovered in the character of his master. Napoleon is 
an universal genius. " He can exchange shapes with 
Proteus to advantage." He hesitates at no means, and 
commands every skill. He toys with the weak ; he 
tampers with the mean ; he browbeats the haught}* ; 
with the cunning, he is a serpent ; for the courageous, 
he has teeth and talons ; for the cowering, he has hoofs. 
He found our administration a pen-and-ink gentry, — 
parchment politicians ; and he has laid, for these ephem- 
eral essences, a paper fly-trap dipped in French honey. 
Hercules, finding that he could not reach our adminis- 
tration with his club, and that they were out of their 
wits at the sight of his lion's skin, has condescended to 



272 SPEECH ON 

meet them in petticoats, and conquer them, spinning at 
their own distaff. 

As to those who, after the evidence now in our hands, 
deny that the decrees exist, I can no more reason with 
them than with those who should deny the sun to be in 
the firmament at noon-day. The decrees revoked ! 
The formal statute act of a despot revoked by the breath 
of his servile minister, uttered on conditions not per- 
formed by Great Britain ; and claiming terms, not in- 
tended to be performed by us ! The fatness of our 
commerce secure, when every wind of heaven is bur- 
dened with the sighs of our suffering seamen, and the 
coast of the whole continent heaped with the plunder of 
our merchants ! The den of the tiger safe, yet the 
tracks of those who enter it are innumerable, and not a 
trace is to be seen of a returning footstep ! The den of 
the tiger safe, while the cry of the mangled victims are 
heard through the adamantine walls of his cave, — cries 
which despair and anguish utter, and which despotism 
itself cannot stifle ! 

No, Mr. Speaker, let us speak the truth. The act 
now proposed is required by no obligation. It is wholly 
gratuitous, Call it, then, by its proper name, — the 
first fruit of French allegiance ; a token of transatlantic 
submission : any thing except an act of an American 
Congress, the representatives of freemen. 

The present is the most favorable moment for the 
abandonment of these restrictions, unless a settled co- 
operation with the French continental system be deter- 
mined. We have tendered the provisions of this act to 
both belligerents. Both have accepted. Both, as prin- 
cipals or by their agents, have deceived us. 



NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 273 

We talk of the edicts of George the Third and of 
Napoleon. Yet those of the President of the United 
States, under your law, are far more detestable to your 
merchants. Their edicts plunder the rich : his make 
those who are poor still poorer. Their decrees attack 
the extremities : his proclamation fixes upon the vitals, 
and checks the action of the seat of commercial life. 

I know that great hopes are entertained of relief from 
the proposed law by the prospect of a British regency. 
Between a mad monarch and a simpering successor, it 
is expected that the whole system of that nation will be 
abandoned. Let gentlemen beware, and not calculate 
too certainly on the fulfilment by men in power of pro- 
fessions made out of it. The majority need not go out 
of our own country, nor beyond their own practice, to 
be convinced how easily in such cases proud promises 
may eventuate in meagre performance. 

The whole bearing of my argument is to this point. 
It is time to take our own rights into our own keeping. 
It is time, if we will not protect, to refrain from ham- 
pering by our own acts, the commerce of our country. 
Put your merchants no longer under the guardianship 
and caprice of foreign powers. Punish not, at the insti- 
gation of foreigners, your own citizens for following 
their righteous callings. We owe nothing to France. 
We owe nothing to Great Britain. We owe every thing 
to the American people. Let us show ourselves really 
independent ; and look to a grateful, a powerful, and 
then united, people for support against every aggressor. 



18 



SPEECH 

ON THE PAY OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. 
Jan. 5, 1813. 



SPEECH 

ON THE PAY OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. 
Jan. 5, 1813. 



[This speech would be more correctly entitled one on the 
Enlistment of Minors, — one clause of the bill authorizing the 
enlistment of minors and apprentices without the previous consent 
of parents, masters, and guardians. It greatly exasperated the 
adrhinistratiou members, and called down on Mr. Quincy's head 
the bitterest personalities and the most furious rage that had ever 
yet been visited upon him. It was denounced as "a foul and 
atrocious libel " and an " atrocious falsehood." None of these 
things, however, moved his constant soul ; and he had the satis- 
faction of knowing that the objectionable clause was struck out 
by the Senate, after it had passed the House, mainly through 
the influence of this speech. Only four Senators voted for it. 
— Ed.] 

Mr. Speaker, — I am sensible that I owe an apology 
for addressing you at so early a period of the session, 
and so soon after taking my seat, if not to the House, 
at least to my particular constituents. It is well known 
to them, at least to very many of them, for I have taken 
no pains to conceal the intention, that I came to this 
session of Congress, with a settled determination to 
take no part in the deliberations of the House. I had 
adopted this resolution, not so much from a sense of 



278 SPEECH ON- THE 

self-respect as of public duty. Seven j-ears' experience 
in the business of this House has convinced me that 
from this side of the House all argument is hopeless ; 
that, whatever a majority has determined to do, it will 
do, in spite of any moral suggestion or any illustration 
made in this quarter. Whether it be from the nature 
of man, or whether it be from the particular provisions 
of our Constitution, I know not, but the experience of 
my political life has perfectly convinced me of this fact, 
that the will of the cabinet is the law of the land. 
Under these impressions, I have felt it my duty not to 
deceive my constituents, and had therefore resolved by 
no act or expression of mine in any way to countenance 
the belief that any representation I could make on this 
floor could be useful to them, or that I could serve them 
any farther than by a silent vote. Even now, sir, it is 
not my intention to enter into this discussion. I shall 
present you my thoughts, rather by way of protest than 
of argument. And I shall not trouble myself afterwards 
with any cavils that may be made ; neither by whom, 
nor in what manner. 

I should not have deviated from the resolution of 
which I have spoken, were it not for what appears to 
me the atrocity of the principle and the magnitude of 
the mischief contained in the provisions of this bill. 
When I speak of the principle as atrocious, I beg dis- 
tinctly to be understood as not impeaching the motives 
of any gentlemen, or representing them as advocating 
an atrocious principle. I speak only of the manner in 
which the object presents itself to my moral view. 

It is the principle contained in the third section of 
the bill of which I speak. That section provides that 



ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 279 

" every person above the age of eighteen j^ears, who 
shall be enlisted by any officer, shall be held in the ser- 
vice of the United States during the period of such 
enlistment, any thing in any act to the contrary not- 
withstanding." The nature of this provision is apparent ; 
its tendency is not denied. It is to seduce minors of all 
descriptions — be they wards, apprentices, or children — 
from the service of their guardians, masters, and parents. 
On this principle I rest my objection to the bill. I 
meddle not with the nature of the war. Nor is it 
because I am hostile to this war, both in its jorinciple 
and its conduct, that I at present make any objection 
to the provisions of tlie bill. I say nothing against its 
waste of public money. If eight dollars a month for 
the private be not enough, take sixteen dollars. If that 
be not enough, take twenty. Economy is not my diffi- 
culty. Nor do I think much of that objection of which 
my honorable friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor) 
seemed to think a great deal, — the liberation of debtors 
from their obligations. So far as relates to the present 
argument, without any objection from me, you may 
take what temptations j^ou please, and apply them to 
the ordinary haunts for enlistment, — clear the jails ; 
exhaust the brothel ; make a desert of the tippling 
shop ; lay what snares you please for overgrown vice, 
for lunacy which is of full age and idiocy out of its 
time. But here stop. Touch not private right; regard 
the sacred ties of guardian and master ; corrupt not 
our youth ; listen to the necessities of our mechanics 
and manufacturers ; have compassion for the tears of 
parents. 

In order to give a clear view of ray subject, I shall 



280 SPEECH ON THE 

consider it under three aspects. Its absurdity, its in- 
equality, its immorality. In remarking on the absurdity 
of this principle, it is necessary to recur to that part of 
the message of the President of the United States, at 
the opening of the present session of Congress, which 
introduced the objects proposed in this bill to the con- 
sideration of the House, and to observe the strange and 
left-lianded conclusions it contains. The paragraph to 
which I allude is the following : — 

" With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war 
to which our national faculties are adequate, the atten- 
tion of Congress will be particularly drawn to the insuf- 
ficiency of existing provisions for filling up the military 
establishment. Such is the happy condition of our 
country arising from the facility of subsistence and the 
high wages for every species of occupation that, not- 
withstanding the augmented inducements provided at 
the last session, a partial success only has attended 
the recruiting service. The deficiency has been neces- 
sarily supplied during the campaign by other than reg- 
ular troops, with all the inconveniences and expense 
incident to them. The remedy lies in establishing more 
favorably for the private soldier the proportion between 
his recompense and the term of enlistment. And it is 
a subject which cannot too soon, or too seriously, be 
taken into consideration." 

Mr. Speaker, what a picture of felicity has the Presi- 
dent of the United States here drawn in describing the 
situation of the yeomanry of this country ? Their con- 
dition happy, subsistence easy, wages high, full employ- 
ment, — to such favored beings, what would be the 
suggestions of love truly parental ? Surely that so much 



ENLISTMENT OF MINOKS. 281 

happiness should not be put at hazard, that innocence 
should not be tempted to scenes of guilt, that the 
prospering ploughshare should not be exchanged for 
the sword. Such would be the lessons of parental 
love. And such will always be the lessons which a 
President of the United States will teach in such a state 
of things, whenever a father of his country is at the head 
of the nation. Alas, Mr. Speaker, how different is this 
message ! The burden of the thought is, how to decoy 
the happy yeoman from home, from peace and pros- 
perity, to scenes of blood, how to bait the man-trap ; 
what inducements shall be held forth to avarice which 
neither virtue nor habit nor wise influences can resist. 
But this is not the whole. Our children are to be 
seduced from their parents. Apprentices are invited 
to abandon their masters. A legislative sanction is 
offered to perfidy and treachery. Bounty and wages 
to filial disobedience. Such are the moral means, by 
which a war, not of defence or of necessity, but of pride 
and ambition, should be prosecuted, — fit means to 
such end ! 

The absurdity of this bill consists in this, — in sup- 
posing these provisions to be the remedy for the evil of 
which the President complains. The difficult};^ is that 
men cannot be enlisted. The remedy proposed is, more 
money, and legislative liberty to corrupt our youth. 
And how is this proved to be a remedy ? Why, it has 
been told us, on the other side of the House, that this 
is just the thing they do in France ; that the age 
between eighteen and twenty-one is the best age to 
make soldiers ; that it is the most favorite age in Bona- 
parte's conscription. Well, sir, what then ? Are we in 



282 SPEECH ON THE 

France? Is Napoleon our King? or is he the President 
of the United States ? The style in which this example 
has been urged on the House recalls to my recollection, 
very strongly, a caricature print which was much circu- 
lated in the early period of our revolutionary war. The 
picture represented America as a hale youth, about eigh- 
teen or twenty-one, with a huge purse in his pocket. 
Lord North, with a pistol at his breast, was saying, 
" Deliver your money." George III., pointing at the 
young man and speaking to Lord North, said, " I give 
you that man's money for my use." Behind the whole 
group was a Frenchman capering, rubbing his hands for 
joy, and exclaiming, " Begar, just so in France." Now, 
Mr. Speaker, I have no manner of doubt that the day 
that this act passes, and the whole class of our Northern 
youth is made subject to the bribes of your recruiting 
officers, that there will be thousands of Frenchmen in 
these United States capering, rubbing their hands for 
joy, and exclaiming, " Begar, just so in France." Sir, 
the great mistake of tliis whole project lies in this, — 
that French maxims are applied to American States. 
Now, it ought never to be lost sight of by legislators in 
this country that the people of it are not and never can 
be Frenchmen ; and, on the contrary ; that they are, 
and can never be any thing else than. Freemen. 

The true source of the absurdity of this bill is a mis- 
take in the nature of the evil. The President of the 
United States tells us that the administration have not 
sufficient men for their armies. The reason is, he adds, 
the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. 
It is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your 
armies ; it is moral motive in which you are deficient. 



ENLISTMENT OF IMINORS. 283 

Sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist among the 
happy and Avise yeomanry of New England in relation 
to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very 
little or at least much less diversity of sentiment con- 
cerning the invasion of Canada as a means of prosecuting 
it. They do not want Canada as an ohject of ambition. 
They do not want it as an object of plunder. They see 
no imaginable connection between the conquest of that 
province, and the attainment of those commercial rights 
which were the pretended objects of the war. On the 
contrary, they see, and very plainly too, that if our 
cabinet be gratified in the object of its ambition, and 
Canada become a conquered province, that an apology 
is immediately given for extending and maintaining in 
that country a large military force under pretence of 
preserving the conquered territories ; really, with a view 
to overawe the adjoining States. With this view of that 
project, the yeomanry of New England want that moral 
motive which will alone, in that country, fill your armies 
with men worthy enlisting. They have no desire to be 
the tools of the ambition of any man or any set of men. 
Schemes of conquest have no charms for them. 

Abandon your projects of invasion ; throw your 
shield over the seaboard and the frontier ; awe into 
silence the Indians in your territory ; fortify your cities ; 
take the shackles from your commerce ; give us ships 
and seamen ; and show the people of this country a 
wise object of warfare, and there will be no want of 
men, money, or spirit. 

I proceed to my second objection, which was to the 
inequality of the operation of the provisions of this bill. 
It is never to be forgotten, in the conduct of the govern- 



h 



284 SPEECH ON THE 

ment of these United States, that it is a political associa- 
tion of independent sovereignties, greatly differing in 
respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of terri- 
tory, and preparation of arms. It ought also never to 
Le forgotten that the proportion of physical force which 
nature has given does not lie within precisely the same 
line of division with the pro]3ortion of political influence 
which the Constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise 
men conducting a political association thus constructed, 
ought always to have mainly in view not to disgust 
any of the great sections of the country, either in regard 
of their interests, their habits, or their prejudices. 
Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden 
any of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to 
them, and in which the residue of the States cannot be 
partakers, or at least only in a very small degree. I 
think this principle of political action is incontrovertible. 
Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in these 
United States, that which results from the character of 
the labor in different parts of the country is the most 
obvious and critical. In the Southern States all the 
laborious industry of the country is conducted by 
slaves ; in the Northern States it is conducted by the 
yeomanry, their apprentices or children. The truth is, 
that the only real property in the labor of others which 
exists in the Northern States is that which is possessed 
in that of minors, the very class of which, at its most 
valuable period, this law proposes to divest them. The 
planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his 
hundred, and his thousand of human beings, and say, 
" These are my property." The farmer of the North 
has only one or two " ewe lambs," his children, of which 



ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 285 

he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, 
" These are my ornaments." Yet these this bill proposes 
to take from him, or what is the same thing, proposes to 
corrupt them, to bribe them out of his service, and that, 
too, at the very age when the desire of freedom is the 
most active, and the splendor of false glory the most 
enticing. Yet your slaves are safe ; there is no project 
for their manumission in the bill. The husbandman of 
the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer, shall have 
the property he holds in the minors subject to him put 
to hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. 
Where is the justice, — where the equality of such a 
provision ? 

It is very well known in our country — indeed, it is 
obvious from the very nature of the thing — that the 
exact period of life at which the temptation of this law 
begins to operate upon the minor is the moment when 
his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or 
master. Until the age of eighteen the boy has hardly 
paid to the parent or master the cost of his clothing and 
education. Between the age of eighteen and twenty is 
just the period of profit to the father and master. It is 
also the period at which, from the approximation tow- 
ards manhood, service begins to grow irksome and 
the desire of liberty powerful. The passions are then, 
also, in their most ungoverned sway ; and the judg- 
ment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and cor- 
rupted by the vain dreams of military glory. At this 
period your law appears with its instruments of seduc- 
tion. It offers freedom to the minor's desire of liberty, 
plunder to his avarice, glory to his weakness ; in short, it 
offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural 



286 SPEECH ON THE 

or social obligations. This is a true view of this law. 
That.it will have that full operation which its advocates 
hope and expect, that it will fill your armies with run- 
aways from their masters and fathers, I do not believe. 
But that it will have a very great operation I know. 
The temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. 
With my consent they shall never be exposed to it. 

I offer anotlier consideration. The Constitution of 
the United States declares, in its seventh amendment, 
— " Private property shall not be taken for public use, 
wi'thout just compensation." Now, of all the property 
which the laws of the Northern States secure to the 
people of that countrj'-, that which consists in the labor 
of the minor, and which by our laws is sacred to the 
guardian, master, or parent, is perhaps the most valued 
and most precious to uur mechanics, manufacturers, and 
yeomen. Yet when the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Stowe) proposed to secure the wages and bounty 
of the enlisting minor to those to whom his service 
belonged, it was rejected. What is this but a palpable 
violation of this provision of the Constitution ? What 
is it but taking private property for public use without 
compensation ? 

But neither the pecuniary loss nor yet the violation 
of the Constitution is the evil which I most deprecate. 
It is the infringement of our moral rights, and the inroad 
which the bill makes in the moral habits of our quarter 
of the country. I know that gentlemen are very apt 
to sneer when they hear any thing said about our 
religious institutions or moral habits in the eastern 
country ; but I will explain what I mean. It is not 
our religious institutions, our sabbaths, our fasts, our 



ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 287 

thanksgivings ; nor yet our schools, colleges, and semi- 
naries of education, — to which I refer Avhen I speak of 
our moral habits. These are but means and precau- 
tions. It is certain established principles of life and 
conduct which, without being noticed in general laws, 
are often the foundation of them, and which always rule 
and control our positive institutions. I do not know, 
for instance, that the extent of the moral tie which 
binds the son to the father, or the apprentice to the 
master, is precisely assigned by any of our laws. Yet 
the principle upon which all our laws on this subject 
rest, is this, — that this tie is sacred and inviolate. 
The law regulates, but, except in case of misconduct, 
never severs it. 

I know it is said that in our country minors are sub- 
jected to militia duty ; and so they are. But this very 
service is a proof of the position which I maintain. 
Their obligation to serve in the militia is always subject 
to the paramount authority of the master and the 
parent. 

The law sa3^s, it is true, that minors shall be subject 
to militia duty. But it also permits the father and the 
master to relieve them from that obligation at an estab- 
lished price. If either will pay the fine, he may retain 
the service of the minor, free from the militia duty. 
What is the consequence of all this ? Why, that the 
minor always trains not free of tlxe will, but subject to 
the will, of his natural or legal guardians. The moral 
tie is sacred. It is never broken. It is a principle 
that, cases of misconduct out of the question, the minor 
shall never conceive himself capable of escaping from 
the wholesome and wise control of his master or father. 



I 



SPEECH ON THE ENLISTMENT OF MINOES. 

The ijroposed law cuts athwart this wise principle. 
It preaches infidelity. It makes every recruiting officer 
in your country an apostle of perfidy. It says to every 
vain, thoughtless, discontented, or ambitious minor : 
" Come hither ; here is an asylum from your bonds ; 
here are wages and bounty for disobedience : only con- 
sent to go to Canada ; forget what you owe to nature 
and your protectors ; go to Canada, and you shall find 
freedom and glory." Such is the morality of this law. 

Take a slave from his master, on any general and 
novel principle, and there would be an earthquake from 
the Potomac to the St. Mary's. Bribe an apprentice 
from his master; seduce a son, worth all the slaves 
Africa ever produced, from his father, — we are told 
it is only a common affair. It will be right when there 
is law for it. Such is now the law in France ! 

Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say 
will not be construed into a threat. It is not uttered 
in that spirit ; but only to evince the strength of my 
convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of 
this law on the hoj)es of New England, particularly 
of Massachusetts. But pass it, and, if the legislatures 
of the injured States do not come down upon your re- 
cruiting officers with the old laws against kidnappiing 
and manstealing, they are false to themselves, their 
posterity and their country. 



SPEECH 

IN RELATION TO MARITIME PROTECTION. 
Jan. 25, 1812. 



19 



k 



SPEECH 

IN RELATION TO MARITIME PROTECTION. 
Jan. 25, 1812. 



[This speech had the singular good fortune, I believe unex- 
rapled in Mr. Quincy's congressional life, of being applauded 
by both sides of the House. As the conflict with England, 
liich the war-party in Congress was bent upon bringing about, 
became more and more imminent, the more intelligent of its 
members could not shut their eyes to the necessity of some kind 
of naval defence. Even the Southern democrats, who always 
had resisted every attempt to strengthen the navy, as a pro- 
tection only needed by the North, saw that a war with a great 
maritime power must be waged on the ocean as well as on the 
land. Accordingly, several of the principal Southern adminis- 
tration members, and Mr. Calhoun in particular, applied to Mr. 
Quincy for his assistance in this matter. The speech gave 
general satisfaction, in and out of Congress, the only exceptions 
being some Federal extremists, who looked upon any measures 
for the defence of the country in case of war as a strengthening of 
the hands of the administration, and encouraging it to provoke 
one. Ex-President John Adams, whose decided opinions in favor 
of a powerful naval establishment are well known, expressed 
his approbation of this speech in these strong terms : " I thank 
you for your speech in relation to Maritime Protection, and much 
more for making it. It is the speech of a man, a citizen, and a 
statesman. It is neither hyperbole nor flattery in me to say, it 
is the most important speech ever uttered in that House since 
1789. — Ed.] 



292 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

Mr. Speaker, — I rise to address you on this occasion 
with no affected diffidence, and with many doubts con- 
cerning the expediency of taking any part in this debate. 
On the one hand, the subject has been discussed with a 
zeal, industry, and talent, which leave but little scope 
for novelty either in topic or illustration. On the other 
hand, arguments from this side of the House in favor of 
this question are received with so natural a jealousy 
that I know not whether more may not be lost than 
gained by so unpropitious a support. Indeed, sir, if this 
subject had been discussed on narrow or temporary or 
party principles, I should have been silent. On such 
ground I could not condescend to debate ; I could not 
hope to influence. But the scale of discussion has been 
enlarged and liberal, relative rather to the general 
system than to the particular exigency ; in almost every 
respect it has been honorable to the House and auspi- 
cious to the prospects of the nation. In such a state of 
feeling and sentiment, I could not refrain from indulging 
the hope that suggestions, even from no favorite quar- 
ter, would be received with candor, perhaps with atten- 
tion. And, when I consider the deep interest which the 
State from which I have the honor to be a Representative 
has, according to my apprehension, in the event, I can- 
not permit the opportunity entirely to pass without 
bringing my small tribute of reflection into the general 
stock of the House. 

The object I shall chiefly attempt to enforce is the 
necessity and duty of a systematic protection of our 
maritime rights by maritime means. I would call the 
thoughtful and intelligent men of this House and nation 
to the contemplation of the essential connection between 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PKUTECTION. 293 

a naval force proj)ortionate to the circumstances of our 
sea-coast, the extent of our commerce, and the inlierent 
enterprise of our people ; — I say, sir, I would call them 
to the contemplation of the essential connection between 
such a naval force and the safety, prosperity, and exist- 
ence of our Union. In the course of my observations, 
and as a subsidiary argument, I shall also attempt to 
show the connection between the adoption of the prin- 
ciple of a systematic maintenance of our maritime rights 
by maritime means, and relief from our present national 
embarrassments. 

I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I never can look — 
indeed, in my opinion, no American statesman ought ever 
to look — on any question touching the vital interests 
of this nation, or of any of its component parts, without 
keeping at all times in distinct view the nature of our 
political association, and the character of the indepen- 
dent sovereignties which compose it. Among .States, the 
only sure and permanent bond of union is interest ; and 
the vital interests of States, although they may be some- 
times obscured, can never, for a very long time, be 
misapprehended. The natural protection which the 
essential interests of the great component parts of our 
political association require will be, sooner or later, 
understood by the States concerned in those interests. 
If a protection, upon system, be not provided, it is 
impossible that discontent should not result. And need 
I tell statesmen that, when great local discontent is 
combined in those sections with great physical power 
and with acknowledged portions of sovereignty, the 
inbred ties of nature will be too strong for the artificial 
ties of a parchment compact ? 



294 SPEECH ON MAEITEME PROTECTION. 

Hence it results that tlie essential interests of the 
great component parts of our association ought to be 
the polar lights of all our statesmen ; by them they 
should guide their course. According to the bearings 
and variations of those lights should the statesmen of 
such a country adjust their policy; always bearing in 
mind two assurances, as fundamental principles of 
action, which the nature of things teaches, — that 
although temporary circumstances, party spirit, local 
rivalries, personal jealousies, suggestions of subordinate 
interests, may weaken or even destroy for a time the 
influence of the leading and permanent interests of any 
great section of the countr}^, yet those interests must 
ultimately and necessarily predominate and swallow up 
all these local, and temporary, and personal, and subor- 
dinate considerations : in other words, the minor in- 
terests will soon begin to realize the essential connection 
which exists between their prosperity and the prosperity 
of those great interests which, in such sections of the 
countr}^, nature has made predominant, and that no 
political connection among free States can be lasting, or 
ought to be, which systematically oppresses or systemat- 
ically refuses to protect the vital interests of any of 
the sovereignties which compose it. 

I have recurred to these general considerations to 
introduce and elucidate this principle, which is the 
basis of my argument, that, as it is the incumbent duty 
of every nation to protect its essential interests, so it is 
the most impressive and critical duty of a nation, com- 
posed of a voluntary association of vast, powerful, and 
independent States, to protect the essential interests of 
all its great component parts. And I add that this pro- 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 295 

tection must not be formal or fictitious, but that it 
must be proportionate to the greatness of those interests, 
and of a nature to give content to the States concerned 
in their protection. 

In reference to this principle, the course of my reflec- 
tions will be guided by two general inquiries, — the 
nature of the interest to be protected, the nature of the 
protection to be extended. In pursuing these inquiries, 
I shall touch very slightly, if at all, on the abstract duty 
of protection, which is the very end of all political asso- 
ciations, and without the attainment of which they are 
burdens and no blessings. But I shall keep it mainly 
in my purpose to establish the connection between a 
naval force and commercial prosperity ; and to show 
the nature of the necessity, and the degree of our 
capacity, to give to our maritime rights a maritime 
protection. 

In contemplathig the nature of the interest to be pro- 
tected, three prominent features strike the eye and 
direct the course of reflection, — its locality, its great- 
ness, and its permanency. 

The locality of any great interest, in an association 
of States such as compose this Union, will be a circum- 
stance of primary importance in the estimation of every 
wise statesman. When a great interest is equally dif- 
fused over the whole mass, it may be neglected or 
oppressed, or even abandoned, with less hazard of inter- 
nal dissension. The equality of the pressure lightens the 
burden. The common nature of the interest removes 
the causes of jealousy. A concern equally affecting the 
happiness of every part of -the nation, it is natural to 
suppose is equally dear to all, and equally understood 



296 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

by all. Hence results acquiescence in any artificial or 
political embarrassment of it. Sectional fears and sus- 
picions, in such case, have no food for support and no 
stimulant for activity. But it is far otherwise when a 
great interest is, from its nature, either wholly, or in 
a very great proportion, local. In relation to such a 
local interest, it is impossible that jealousies and suspi- 
cions should not arise whenever it is obstructed by any 
artificial or political embarrassment. And it is also 
impossible that they should not be, in a greater or less 
degree, just. It is true of the wisest, and the best, and 
the most thoughtful of our species that they are so con- 
stituted as not deeply to realize the importance of 
interests which affect them not at all or ver}^ remotely. 
Every local circle of States, as well as of individuals, 
has a set of interests, in the prosperity of which the 
happiness of the section to which they belong is iden- 
tified ; in relation to which interests the hopes and the 
fears, the reasonings and the schemes, of the inhabitants 
of such sections are necessarily fashioned and conducted. 
It is morally impossible that those concerned in such 
sectional interests should not look with some degree of 
jealousy on schemes adopted in relation to those inter- 
ests, and prosecuted by men a majority of which have 
a very remote or very small stake in them. And this 
jealousy must rise to an extreme height when the course 
of measures adopted, whether they have relation to the 
management or the protection of such interests, wholly 
contravene the opinions and the practical experience 
of the persons immediately concerned in them. This 
course of reflection has a tendency to illustrate this 
idea, that as, in every political association, it is of 



» 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 297 

primary importance that the great interests of each 
local section should be skilfully and honestly managed 
and protected, so, in selecting the mode and means of 
management and protection, an especial regard should 
be had to the content and rational satisfaction of those 
most deeply concerned in such sectional interests. 
Theories and speculations of the closet, however abun- 
dant in a show of wisdom, are never to be admitted to 
take the place of those principles of conduct in which 
experience has shown the prosperity and safety of such 
interests to consist. Practical knowledge, and that 
sagacity which results from long attention to great 
interests, never fail to inspire a just self-confidence in 
relation to those interests, — a confidence not to be 
browbeaten by authority, nor circumvented by any 
abstract reasoning. And, in a national point of view, 
it is scarcely of more importance that the course adopted 
should be wise than that content and rational satisfaction 
should be given. 

On this topic of locality, I shall confine myself to one 
or two very plain statements. It seems sufiicient to 
observe that commerce is, from the nature of things, 
the leading interest of more than one-half, and that it 
is the predominating interest of more than one-third, 
of the people of these United States. The States north 
of the Potomac contain nearly four millions of souls ; 
and surely it needs no proof to convince the most casual 
observer that the proportion which the commercial 
interest bears to the other interests of that great section 
of the Union is such as entitles it to the denomination 
of a leading interest. The States north of the Hudson 
contain nearly two and a half millions of souls ; and 



298 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

surely there is as little need of proof to show that the 
proportion the commercial interest bears to the other 
interests of that northern section of the Union is such 
as entitles it there to the denomination of a predomi- 
nating interest. In all the country between the PotO' 
mac and the Hudson, the interest of commerce is so 
great dn proportion to the other interests that its embar- 
rassment clogs and weakens the energy of every other 
description of industry. Yet the agricultural and man- 
ufacturing interests of this section are of a nature and 
a magnitude, both in respect of the staples of the one 
and the objects of the other, as render them in a very 
considerable degree independent of the commercial. 
And although they feel the effect of the obstruction of 
commerce, the feeling may be borne for a long time 
without much individual suffering, or any general dis- 
tress. But in the country north of the Hudson, the 
proportion and connections of these great interests 
are different. Both agriculture and manufactures have 
there grown up in more intimate relation to commerce. 
The industry of that section has its shape and energy 
from commercial prosperity. To the construction, the 
supply, and the support of navigation, its manufactures 
have a direct or indirect reference. And it is not very 
different with its agriculture. A country divided into 
small farms, among a population great compared with 
its extent, requires quick circulation and easy processes 
in the exchange of its commodities. This can only be 
obtained by an active and prosperous commerce. ^ 

In order more clearly to apprehend the locality of the 
commercial interest, cast your eyes upon the abstract of 
tonnage lately laid upon our tables, according to annual 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 299 

custom, by the Secretary of our Treasury. It will be 
found that 

TONS. 

The aggregate tonnage of the United States is . . 1,424,000 

Of this there is owned between the Mississippi and 

the Potomac 221,000 

Between the Potomac and the Hudson, .... 321,000 

And north of the Hudson, 882,000 

1,424,000 _ 

If this tonnage be estimated, new and old, as it may 
without extravagance, at an average value of fifty 
dollars the ton : — 

The total aggregate value of the tonnage of the 
United States may be stated, in round numbers, 
at $70,000,000 

Of which four-sevenths are owned north of the 

Hudson, equal to 40,000,000 

Two-sevenths are owned between the Hudson and 

the Potomac, equal to 20,000,000 

One-seventh is owned south of the Potomac, equal 

to 10,000,000 

$70,000,000 

To place the locality of this interest in a light still 
more striking and impressive, I state that it appears by 
that abstract that the single State of Massachusetts 
alone, possesses nearly half a million of tonnage. Pre- 
cisely, in round numbers, four hundred and niuety-six 
thousand tons ; an amount of tonnage equal, within 
' fifty thousand tons, to the whole tonnage owned by all 
the States south of the Hudson. 

I refer to this excessive disproportion between the 
tonnage owned in different States and sections of the 



300 SPEECH ON MAKITIME PROTECTION. 

United States rather as a type than as an estimate of 
the greatness of the comparative disproportion of the 
whole commercial interest in those respective States and 
sections. The truth is, this is much greater than the 
proportion of tonnage indicates, inasmuch as the capital 
and the industry occupied in finding employment for this 
great amount of tonnage are almost wholly possessed 
by the sections of the countr}^ to which that tonnage 
belongs. A satisfactory estimate of the value of that 
capital and industry would require a minuteness of 
detail little reconcilable either with your patience or 
with the necessity of the present argument. Enough 
has been said to convince any one who will take the 
trouble to reflect upon the subject that the interest is, 
in its nature, eminently local ; that it is impossible it 
can be systematically abandoned without convulsing 
that whole section of country ; and that the States in- 
terested in this commerce, so vital to their prosperity, 
have a right to claim and ought not to be content with 
less than efficient protection. 

The imperious nature of this duty will be still farther 
enforced by considering the greatness of this interest. 
In doing this, I prefer to present a single view of it, 
lest, by distracting the attention to a great variety of 
particulars, the effect of the whole should be lost in the 
multitude of details. Let us inquire into the amount 
of property annually exposed to maritime depredation 
and what the protection of it is worth to the nation 
which is its proprietor. An estimate of this kind must 
necessarily be very loose and general. But it will be 
sufficiently accurate to answer all the purposes of the 
argument. For the subject is of that massive character 



SPEECH ON MARITEME PROTECTION. 301 

that a mistake of many millions makes no material alter- 
ation in the conclusion to be drawn from the statement. 

The total export of the Uuited States, in the 
treasury year, endino: on the first day of Octo- 
ber, 1807, was $108,000,000. That of the 
year ending the first of October, 1811, was 
$01,000,000. The average value exceeds 
$80,000,000. But to avoid all cavil I state 
the annual average value of exports of the 

United States at $70,000,000 

To this add the annual average value of the 
shipping of the United States, which, new and 
old, cannot be less than $50 the ton, and on 
one million four hundred thousand tons is also 70,000,000 
To this add the average annual value of freight, 
out and home, which, calculated on voyages of 
all descriptions, may be fairly stated at $70 the 

ton, and is 98,000,000 

For this estimate of the value of freight and 
tonnage, I am indebted to an honorable friend and 
colleague (Mr. Reed), whose information and 
general intelligence concerning commercial sub- 
jects are, perhaps, not exceeded by those of any 
gentleman in either branch of Congress. 
To this add the total average value of property 
annually at risk in our coasting trade, which 
cannot be less than and probably far exceeds . 100,000,000 
Our seamen are also the subjects of annual ex- 
posure. The value of this hardy, industrious, 
and generous race of men is not to be esti- 
mated in money. The pride, the hope, and, if 
you would permit, the bulwark of this com- 
mercial community, are not to be put into the 
scale against silver or gold in any moral or 



Amount carried forward . . . . ' . . $338,000,000 



302 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

Amount brought forward $338,000,000 

political estimate. Yet, for the present object, 
I may be permitted to state the value of the 
skill and industry of these freemen to their 
country, at $500 each, which, on 120,000 sea- 
men, the unquestionable number is ... . 60,000,000 



Making a gross aggregate of $398,000,000 

Although I have no question of the entire correctness 
of this calculation, yet, for the purpose of avoiding every 
objection which might arise in relation to the value of 
freight or tonnage, I put out of the question ninety-eight 
millions of the above estimate, and state the amount of 
annual maritime exposure at only three hundred millions 
of dollars. 

To this must be added the value of the property on 
our seaboard, of all the lives of our citizens, and of all 
the cities and habitations on the coast, exposed to 
instant insult and violation from the most contemptible 
maritime plunderer. No man can think that I am 
extravagant if I add, on this account, an amount equal 
to that annually exposed at sea, and state the whole 
amount of maritime and sea-coast exposure in round 
numbers at six hundred millions of dollars. 

I am aware that this estimate falls short of the reality. 
1 know that the safety of our domestic hearths and our 
altars, and the security of all the dear and tender objects 
of affection and duty which surround them, are beyond 
the reach of pecuniary estimates. But I lay those con- 
siderations out of the question, and simply inquire what 
is the worth of a rational degree of security in time of 
war for such an amount of property, considering it 
merely as an interest to be insured at the market rate 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 303 

of the worth of protection. Suppose an individual had 
such a property at risk, which in time of peace was sub- 
ject to so much plunder and insult, and in time of war 
was liable to be swept away, would lie not be deemed 
unwise, or rather absolutely mad, if he neglected, at the 
annual sacrifice of one or two or even three per cent, to 
obtain for this property a very high degree of security, — 
as high perhaps, as the divine will permits man to enjoy 
in relation to the possessions of this hfe, which, accord- 
ing to the fixed dispensations of his Providence, are 
necessarily uncertain and transitory ? But suppose that 
instead of one, two, or three per cent, he could, by the 
regular annual application of two-thirds of one per cent 
upon the whole amount' of the property at risk, obtain a 
security thus high and desirable, to what language of 
wonder and contempt would such an individual subject 
himself who, at so small a sacrifice, should refuse or 
neglect to obtain so important a blessing ? What, then, 
shall be said of a nation thus neglecting and thus refus- 
ing, when to it attach not only all the considerations of 
interest and preservation of property which belong to 
the individual, but other, and far higher and more im- 
pressive, — such as the maintenance of its peace, of its 
honor ; the safety of the lives of its citizens, of its sea- 
board from devastation, and even perhaps of its children 
and females from massacre or brutal violence ? Is there 
any language of contempt and detestation too strong for 
such blind infatuation, such palpable improvidence ? 
For let it be remembered that two-thirds of one per 
cent, upon the amount of property thus annually ex- 
posed, is four millions of dollars, the annual systematic 
appropriation of which amount would answer all the 



304 SPEECH ON MAEITIME PROTECTION. 

purposes and hopes of commerce of your cities and sea- 
board. 

But, perhaps, the greatness of this interest and our 
pecuniary abilit}^ to protect it may be made more strik- 
ingly apparent by a comparison of our commerce with 
that of Great Britain in the single particular of export. 

I state, then, as a fact of which any man may satisfy 
himself by a reference to M'Pherson's " Annals of Com- 
merce," where the tables of British export may be found, 
that, taking the nine years prior to the war of our Revo- 
lution, from 1766 to 1774 inclusive, the total average 
export of Great Britain was sixteen million pounds ster- 
ling, equal to seventy-one million dollars, — an amount 
less by ten million of dollars than the present total aver- 
age export of the United States. 

And again, taking the nine years beginning with 1789, 
and ending with 1797 inclusive, the total average annual 
export of Great Britain was twenty-four million pounds 
sterling, equal to one hundred and six million dollars, 
which is less by two millions of dollars than the total 
export, of the United States in 1807. It is true that 
this is the official value of the British export, and that 
the real value is somewhat higher, perhaps thirty per 
cent. This circumstance, although it in a degree dimin- 
ishes the approximation of the American to the British 
commerce in point of amount, does not materially affect 
the argument. Upon the basis of her commerce, Great 
Britain maintains a maritime force of eight hundred or 
a thousand vessels of war. And will it be seriously 
contended that, upon the basis of a commerce, like ours, 
thus treading upon the heels of British greatness, we are 
absolutely without the ability of maintaining the security 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 305 

of our sea-board, the safety of our cities and the unob- 
structed course of our coasting trade ? 

B}^ recurring to the permanency of this interest, the 
folly and madness of this negligence, and misplaced 
meanness, for it does not deserve the name of economy, 
will be still more distinctly exhibited. If this com- 
merce were the mushroom growth of a night, if it had 
its vigor from the temporary excitement and the accu- 
mulated nutriment which warring elements in Europe 
had swept from the places of their natural deposit, then, 
indeed, there might be some excuse for a temporizing 
policy touching so transitory an interest. But com- 
merce, in the Eastern States, is of no foreign growth, 
and of no adventitious seed. Its root is of a fibre which 
almost two centuries have nourished. And the per- 
petuity of its destiny is written, in legible characters, . 
as well in the nature of the country as in the disposi- 
tions of its inhabitants. Indeed, sir, look along your 
whole coast, from Passamaquody to Capes Henry and 
Charles, and behold the deep and far-winding creeks and 
inlets, the noble basins, the projecting headlands, the ma- 
jestic rivers, and those sounds and bays, which are more 
like inland seas than like any thing called by those names 
in other quarters of the globe. Can any man do this, 
and not realize that the destiny of the people inhabiting 
such a country is essentially maritime ? Can any man 
do this without being impressed by the conviction that, 
although the poor projects of politicians may embarrass 
for a time the dispositions growing out of the condition 
of such a country, yet that nature will be too strong for 
cobweb regulations, and will vindicate her rights with 
certain effect, perhaps with awful perils ? No nation 

20 



306 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

ever did, or ever ought to, resist such allurements and 
invitations to a particular mode of industry. The pur- 
poses of Providence, relative to the destination of men, 
are to be gathered from the circumstances in which his 
beneficence has placed them. And to refuse to make 
use of the means of " prosperity which his goodness has 
put into our hands, what is it but spurning at his bounty, 
and rejecting the blessings which his infinite wisdom 
has designated for us by the very nature of his allot- 
ments ? The employments of industry, connected with 
navigation and commercial enterprise, are precious to 
the people of that quarter of the country by ancient 
prejudice, not less than by recent profit. The occupa- 
tion is rendered dear and venerable by all the cherished 
associations of our infancy and all the sage and pruden- 
tial maxims of our ancestors. And, as to the lessons of 
encouragement derived from recent experience, what 
nation ever, within a similar period, received so many 
that were sweet and salutary ? What nation, in so 
short a time, ever before ascended to such a height of 
commercial greatness ? 

It has been said, by some philosophers of the other 
hemisphere, that nature in this new world had worked 
by a sublime scale ; that our mountains and rivers and 
lakes were, beyond all comparison, greater than any 
thing the old world could boast ; that she had here made 
nothing diminutive except its animals. And ought we 
not to fear lest the bitterness of this sarcasm should be 
concentrated on our country by a course of policy 
wholly unworthy of the magnitude and nature of the 
interests committed to our guardianship ? Have we 
not reason to fear that some future cynic, with an 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 307 

asperity which truth shall make piercing, will declare 
that all things in these United States are great except 
its statesmen ; and that we are pigmies to whom Provi- 
dence has intrusted, for some inscrutable purpose, 
gigantic labors ? Can we deny the justice of such 
severity of remark, if, instead of adopting a scale of 
thought and a standard of action proportionate to the 
greatness of our trust and the multiplied necessities of 
the people, we bring to our task the mere measures 
of professional industry, and mete out contributions for 
national safety by our fee-tables, our yardsticks, and 
our gill-pots ? Can we refrain from subscribing to the 
truth of such censure, if we do not rise, in some degree, 
to the height of our obligations ; and teach ourselves to 
conceive, and with the people to realize, the vastness 
of those relations which are daily springing among 
States which are not so much one empire as a congre- 
gation of empires ? 

Having concluded what I intended to suggest in 
relation to the nature of the interest to be protected, I 
proceed to consider the nature of the protection which 
it is our duty to extend. 

And here, Mr. Speaker, I am necessitated to make 
an observation which is so simple and so obvious that, 
were it not for the arguments urged against the princi- 
ple of maritime protection, I should have deemed the 
mere mention of it to require an apology. The remark 
is this, that rights in their nature local can only be 
maintained where they exist, and not where they do 
not exist. If you had a field to defend in Georgia, it 
would be very strange to put up a fence in Massa- 
chusetts. And yet how does this differ from invading 



308 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

Canada, for the purpose of defending our maritime 
rights ? I beg not to be understood, Mr. Speaker, bj 
this remark as intending to chill the ardor for the 
Canada expedition. It is very true that, to possess 
ourselves of the Canadas and Nova Scotia and their 
dependencies, it would cost these United States, at the 
least estimate, fifty millions of dollars ; and that Great 
Britain — national pride, and her pledge of protection to 
the people of that country, being put out of the ques- 
tion — would sell you the whole territory for half the 
money. I make no objection, however, on this account. 
On the contrary, for the purposes of tlie present argu- 
ment, I may admit that pecuniary calculation ought to 
be put out of the field when spirit is to be shown or 
honor vindicated. I only design to inquire how our 
maritime rights are protected by such invasion. Sup- 
pose that, in every land project, you are successful. 
Suppose both the Canadas, Quebec, Halifax, every 
thing to the North Pole yours by fair conquest. Are 
your rights on the ocean therefore secure ? Does your 
flag float afterwards in honor ? Are your seamen safe 
from impressment ? Is your course along the highway 
of nations unobstructed ? No one pretends it. No one 
has or can show, by any logical deduction or any detail 
of facts, that the loss of those countries would so de- 
press Great Britain as to induce her to abandon for one 
hour any of her maritime pretensions. What, then, 
results ? Why, sir, what is palpable as the day, that 
maritime rights are only to be maintained by maritime 
means. This species of protection must be given, or 
all clamor about maritime rights will be understood by 
the people interested in them to be hollow or false, or, 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PHOTECTION. 309 

what is worse, an intention to co-operate with the 
enemies of our commerce in a still farther embarrass- 
ment of it. 

While I am on this point, I cannot refrain from notic- 
ing a strange solecism which seems to prevail touching 
the term " flag." It is talked about as though there 
was something mystical in its very nature ; as though 
a rag, with certain stripes and stars upon it, tied to a 
stick and called a flag was a wizard's wand, and entailed 
security on every thing under it or within its sphere. 
There is nothing like all this in the nature of the thing. 
A flag is the evidence of power. A land flag is the 
evidence of land power. A maritime flag is the evi- 
dence of maritime power. You may have a piece of 
bunting upon a staff, and call it a flag : but, if you have 
no maritime power to maintain it, you have a name and 
no reality ; you have the shadow without the substance ; 
you have the sign of a flag, but in truth you have no 

In considering this subject of maritime protection, I 
shall recur to the nature and degree of it and to our 
capacity to extend it. And here we are alwaj-s met, 
at the very threshold, with this objection : " A naval 
force requires much time to get it into readiness, and 
the exigency will be past before the preparation can be 
completed." Thus want of foresight in times past is 
made an apology for want of foresight in the time 
present. We were unwise in the beginning, and unwise 
we resolve to continue until the end of the chapter. 
We refuse to do any thing until the moment of exi- 
gency, and then it is too late. Thus our improvidence 
is made sponsor for our disinclination. But Avhat is the 



310 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

law of nature and the dictates of wisdom on this sub- 
ject ? The casualties of life, the accidents to which 
man is exposed, are the modes established by Providence 
for his instruction. This is the law of our nature. 
Hence it is that adversity is said to keep a school for 
certain people who will learn in no other. Hence, too, 
the poet likens it to " a toad ugly and venomous, which 
bears a precious jewel in its head." And in another 
place, but with the same general relation, "out of this 
nettle danger, we pluck the flower safety." This law 
is just as relative to nations as it is to individuals. For, 
notwithstanding all the vaunting of statesmen, their 
whole business is to apj)ly an enlarged common-sense 
to the affairs intrusted to their management. It is as 
much the duty of the rulers of a State, as it is that of 
an individual, to learn wisdom from misfortune, and to 
draw, from every particular instance of adversity, those 
maxims of conduct by the collection and application of 
which our intellectual and moral natures are distin- 
guished and elevated. In all cases of this kind, the 
inquiry ought to be. Is this exigency peculiar, or is it 
general ? Is it one in which human effort is unavailing, 
and therefore requires only the exercise of a resignation 
and wise submission to the divine will? or is it one 
which skill or power may limit or obviate ? On the 
result of this inquiry our obligations depend. For when 
man conducts toward a general evil as though it were 
peculiar ; or when, through ignorance or pusillanimity, 
he neglects to use the means of relief or prevention to 
the extent in which he possesses them ; if he stretches 
himself out in a stupid languor, and refuses to do any 
thing, because he finds he cannot do every thing, — 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 311 

then, indeed, all his clamors against the course of 
nature, or the conduct of others, are but artifices by 
which he would conceal from the world, perhaps from 
himself, the texture of his own guilt. His misfortunes 
are, in such case, his crimes. Let them proceed from 
what source they will, he is himself, at least, a half- 
worker in the fabric of his own miseries. 

Mr. Speaker, can any one contemplate the exigency 
which at this day depresses our country, and for one 
moment deem it peculiar ? The degree of such com- 
mercial exigencies may vary, but they must always exist. 
It is absurd to suppose that such a population as is that 
of the Atlantic States can be either driven or decoyed 
from the ocean ? It is just as absurd to imagine that 
wealth will not invite cupidity, and that weakness will 
not insure both insult and plunder. The circumstances 
of our age make this truth signally impressive. Who does 
not see in the conduct of Europe a general departure 
from those common principles which once constituted 
national morality ? What is safe which power can seize 
or ingenuity can circumvent ? or what truths more pal- 
pable than these, — that there is no safety for national 
rights but in the national arm ; and that important 
interests systematically pursued must be systematically 
protected ? 

Touching the nature and degree of that maritime 
protection which it may be wise in this nation to extend 
to its maritime interests, it seems to me that our exer- 
tions should rather be excited than graduated by the 
present exigency ; that our duty is to inquire, upon a 
general scale, what our commercial citizens have, in this 
respect, a right to claim ; and what is the unquestion- 



812 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

able obligation of a commercial nation to so great a 
class of its interests. For this purpose my observations 
will have reference rather to the principles of the sys- 
tem than to the provisions of the bill now under debate. 
Undoubtedly an appropriation for the building of ten 
or any other additional number of frigates would be so 
distinct a manifestation of the intention of the national 
legislature to extend to commerce its natural protection 
as in itself to outweigh any theoretic preference for a 
maritime force of a higher character. I cannot, there- 
fore, but cordially support an appropriation for a species 
of protection so important and desirable. Yet, in an 
argument having relation to the sj'stem rather than to 
the occasion, I trust I shall have the indulgence of the 
House if my course of reflections should take a wider 
range than the propositions on the table, and embrace 
within the scope of remark the general principles by 
which the nature and degree of systematic naval pro- 
tection should in my judgment be regulated. 

Here it seems hardly necessary to observe that a 
main object of all protection is satisfaction to the per- 
sons whose interests are intended to be protected ; and 
to this object a peculiar attention ought to be paid when 
it happens that the majority of the rulers of a nation are 
composed" of persons not immediately concerned in 
those interests, and not generally suspected of having 
an overweening attachment to them. In such a state of 
things it is peculiarly important that the course of con- 
duct adopted should be such as to indicate systematic 
intention as to the end, and wise adaptation as to the 
means. For in no other way can that satisfaction of 
which I speak result, and which is, in a national point of 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 313 

view, at the same time one of the most important 
objects of government, and one of the most certain 
evidences of its wisdom ; for men interested in protec- 
tion will always deem themselves the best judges of the 
nature of that protection. And as such men can never 
be content with any thing short of efficient protection, 
according to the nature of the object, so instinct not less 
than reason will instruct them whether the means you 
employ are in their nature real or illusory. Now, in 
order to know what will give this satisfaction to the 
persons interested, so desirable both to them and to 
the nation, it is necessary to know the nature and grada- 
tion in value of those interests, and to extend protec- 
tion, not so much with a lavish as with a discriminating 
and parental hand. If it happen in respect of any 
interest, as it is acknowledged on all sides it is at 
present the case with the commercial, that it cannot be 
protected against all the world, to the utmost of its 
greatness and dispersion, then the inquiry occurs, what 
branch of this interest is most precious to commercial 
men, and what is the nature of that protection which 
will give to it the highest degree of certainty of which 
its nature is susceptible ? It has been by the result of 
these two inquiries, in my mind, that its opinion has 
been determined concerning the objects and the degree 
of protection. 

Touching that branch of interest which is most 
precious to commercial men, it is impossible that there 
can be any mistake ; for however dear the interests of 
property or of life exposed upon the ocean may be to 
their owners or their friends, yet the safety of our 
altars and of our firesides, of our cities and of our sea- 



314 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

board, must, from the nature of things, be entwined 
into the affections by ties incomparably more strong and 
tender. And it happens that both national pride and 
honor are peculiarly identified with the support of these 
primary objects of commercial interest. 

It is in this view I state that the first and most im- 
portant object of the nation ought to be such a naval 
force as shall give such a degree of rational security as 
the nature of the subject admits to our cities, and sea- 
board, and coasting trade ; that the system of maritime 
protection ought to rest upon this basis ; and that it 
should not attempt to go further until these objects are 
secured. And I have no hesitation to declare, that 
until such a maritime force be systematically maintained 
by this nation, it shamefully neglects its most important 
duties and most critical interests. 

With respect to the nature and extent of this naval 
force some difference of opinion may arise, according to 
the view taken of the primary objects of protection. 
For myself I consider that those objects are first to be 
protected in the safety of which the national character 
and happiness are most deeply interested ; and these 
are chiefly concerned, beyond all question, in the pres- 
ervation of our maritime settlements from pillage and 
our coast from violence. For this purpose it is requisite 
that there should be a ship of war for the harl)or of 
every great city of the United States, equal, in point of 
force, to the usual grade of ships of the line of the mari- 
time belligerents. These ships might be so instructed 
as to act singly or together as circumstances might 
require. My reason for the selection of this species 
of force is, that it puts every city and great harbor of 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 315 

the United States in a state of security from the insults, 
and the inhabitants of your sea-coasts from the depreda- 
tion, of any single ship of war of any nation. To these 
should be added a number of frigates and smaller 
vessels of war. By such means our coasting trade 
might be protected, the mouths of our harbors secured, 
in particular that of the Mississippi, from the buccaneers 
of the West Indies, and hereafter, perhaps, from those 
of South America. A system of protection graduated 
upon a scale so conformable to the nature of the country 
and to the greatness of the commercial interest, would 
tend to quiet that spirit of jealousy which so naturally 
and so justly begins to spring among the States. Those 
interested in commerce would care little what local 
influences predominated, or how the ball of power 
vibrated among our factions, provided an efficient pro- 
tection of their essential interests, upon systematic 
principles, was not only secured by the letter of the 
Constitution, but assured by a spirit pervading every 
description of their rulers. 

But it is said that " we have not capacity to maintain 
such a naval force."' Is it want of pecuniary, or want 
of physical capacity ? In relation to our pecuniary 
capacit}^ I will not condescend to add any proof to that 
plain statement already exhibited, showing that we have 
an annual commercial exposure equal to six hundred 
millions of dollars, and that two-thirds of one per cent 
upon this amount of value, or four millions of dollars, 
is more than is necessary, if annually and systematically 
appropriated for this great object, so anxiously and 
rightfully desired by your seaboard, and so essential to 
the honor and obligations of the nation. I will only 



316 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

make a single other statement by way of illustrating 
the smallness of the annual appropriations necessary for 
the attainment of this important purpose. The annual 
appropriation of one-sixth of one per cent on the amount 
of the value of the whole annual commercial exposure 
(one million of dollars) is sufficient to build in two 
years six seventy-four gun ships ; and taking the average 
expense, in peace and war, the annual appropriation of 
the same sum is sufficient to maintain them afterwards 
in a condition for efficient service. This objection of 
pecuniary inability may be believed in the interior coun- 
try where the greatness of the commercial property and 
all the tender obligations connected with its preserva- 
tion are not realized. But in the cities and in the com- 
mercial States the extent of the national resources is 
more truly estimated. They know the magnitude of 
the interest at stake, and their essential claim to pro- 
tection. Why, sir, were we seriously to urge this 
objection of pecuniary incapacity to the commercial 
men of Massachusetts they would laugh us to scorn. 
Let me state a single fact. In the year 1745, the State, 
then the colony of Massachusetts Bay, included a popu- 
lation of 220,000 souls ; and yet, in that infant state of 
the country, it owned a fleet consisting of three ships, — 
one of which carried twenty guns, — three snows, one 
brig, and three sloops, being an aggregate of ten vessels 
of war. These partook of the dangers and shared in 
the glory of that expedition which terminated with the 
surrender of Louisburgh. Comparing the population, 
the extent of territory, the capital and all the other 
resources of this great nation, with the narrow means 
of the colony of Massachusetts at that period of its 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 817 

history, it is not extravagant to assert that the fleet it 
then possessed, in proportion to its pecuniary resources, 
was greater than would be, in proportion to the resources 
of the United States, a fleet of fifty sail of the line and 
one hundred frigates. With what language of wonder 
and admiration does that great orator and prince of 
moral statesmen, Edmund Burke, in his speech for con- 
ciliation with America, speak of the commerce and en- 
terprise of that people ! " When Ave speak of the 
commerce with our colonies, fiction lags after truth ; 
invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and barren." 
" No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries ; no climate 
that is not witness to their toils. Neither the persever- 
ance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor the 
dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever 
carried this most perilous mode of hard industry to the 
extent to which it has been pushed by this recent peo- 
ple, — a people who are still, as it were, but in the 
gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of man- 
hood." And shall the descendants of such a people be 
told that their commercial rights are not worth defend- 
ing, that the national arm is not equal to their pro- 
tection ? And this, too, after the lapse of almost 
forty years has added an extent to their commerce 
beyond all parallel in history, and after the strength and 
resources associated to protect them exceed in point of 
population seven millions of souls, possessing a real and 
personal capital absolutely incalculable ? 

Our pecuniary capacity, then, is unquestionable ; but 
it is said we are deficient in physical power. It is 
strange that those who urge this objection assert it only 
as it respects Great Britain, and admit, either expressly 



318 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

or by implication, — indeed, they cannot deny, — that it 
is within our physical capacity to maintain our maritime 
rights against every other nation. Now, let it be granted 
that we have such an utter incapacity in relation to the 
British naval power ; grant that at the nod of that nation 
we must abandon the ocean to the very mouths of our 
harbors, nay, our harbors themselves. What then ? 
Does it follow that a naval force is useless ? Because 
we must submit to have our rights plundered by one 
power, does it follow that we must be tame and sub- 
missive to every other? Look at the fact. We have, 
within these ten years, lost more property by tlie plun- 
der of the minor naval powers of Europe, France in- 
cluded, than would have been enough to have built and 
maintained twice the number of ships sufficient for our 
protection against their depredations. I cannot exceed 
the fact when I state the loss within that period by 
those powers at thirty millions of dollars. Our capacity 
to defend our commerce against every one of these 
powers is undeniable. Because we cannot maintain our 
rights against the strong, shall we bear insult and invite 
plunder from the weak ? Because there is one levia- 
than in the ocean, shall every shark satiate his maw on 
our fatness with impunity ? 

But let us examine this doctrine of utter inability to 
maintain our maritime rights against Great Britain, so 
obtrusively and vehemently maintained by some who 
clamor the most violently against her insults and in- 
juries. If the project were to maintain our maritime 
rights against that mistress of the sea by convoys 
spread over every ocean, there would indeed be some- 
thing ludicrously fanciful and wild in the proposition. 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 319 

But nothing like this is either proposed or desired. The 
humility of commercial hope in reference to that nation 
rises no higher than the protection of our harbors, the 
security of our coasts and coasting trade. Is it possible 
that such a power as this shall be denied to exist in this 
nation ? If it exist, is it possible that its exercise shall 
be withheld ? 

Look at the present state of our harbors and sea- 
coast. See their ex^josure — I will not say to the fleets of 
Great Britain, but to any single ship of the line, to any 
single frigate, to any single sloop of war. It is true 
the policy of that nation induces her to regard your 
prohibitory laws, and her ships now seldom visit your 
ports. But suppose her policy should change ; suppose 
any one of her ships of war should choose to burn any 
of the numerous settlements upon your sea-coast, or to 
plunder the inhabitants of it, — would there not be some 
security to those exposed citizens if a naval force were 
lying in every great harbor of the United States com- 
petent to protect or avenge the aggression of any single 
ship of war of whatever force ? Would not the knowl- 
edge of its existence teach the naval commanders of 
that nation both caution and respect ? It is worthy of 
this nation, and fully within its capacity, to maintain 
such a force. Not a single sea-bull should put his head 
over our acknowledged water-line without finding a 
power sufficient to take him by the horns. 

But it is said that, " in case of actual war with Great 
Britain, our ships would be useless. She would come 
and take them." In reply to this objection, I shall not 
recur to those details of circumstances, already so fre- 
quently stated, which would give our ships of war, 



320 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

fighting on their own coasts and in the proximity of 
relief and supply, so many advantages over the ships 
of a nation obliged to come three thousand miles to 
the combat. But, allowing this argument from British 
naval superiority its full force, I ask, What is that 
temper on which a nation can most safely rely in the 
day of trial? Is it that which takes counsel of fear, or 
that whicli listens only to the suggestions of dut}^ ? Is 
it that which magnifies all the real dangers until hope 
and exertion are paralyzed in their first germinations ? 
or is it that which dares to attempt noble ends by appro- 
priate means ; which, wisely weighing the nature of 
any anticipated exigency, prepares according to its 
powers, resolved that, whatever else it may want, to 
itself it will never be wanting ? Grant all that is said 
concerning British naval superiority, in the events of 
war has com^jarative weakness nothing to hope from 
opportunity ? Are not the circumstances in which this 
country and Great Britain would be placed, relative to 
naval combats upon our own coast, of a nature to 
strengthen the hope of such opportunity ? Is it of no 
worth to a nation to be in a condition to avail itself of 
conjunctures and occurrences, Mr. Speaker? Prepara- 
tion, in such cases, is every thing. All history is 
replete with the truth that " the battle is not always to 
the strong, but that time and chance happen to all." 
Suppose that Great Britain should send twelve seventy- 
fours to burn our cities or lay waste our coasts. Might 
not such a naval force be dispersed by storms, dimin- 
ished by shipwrecks, or delayed and weakened by the 
events of the voyage ? In such case, would it be noth- 
ing to have even half that number of line-of-battle ships, 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 321 

in a state of vigorous preparation, ready to take the 
advantage of so probable a circumstance, and so provi- 
dential an interposition ? The adage of our school-books 
is as true in relation to States as to men in common 
life, — " Heaven helps those who help themselves." 
It is almost a law of nature. God grants every thing 
to wisdom and virtue. He denies every thing to folly 
and baseness. But suppose the worst. • Grant that, in 
a battle such as our brave seamen would fight in defence 
of their country, our naval force be vanquished. What 
then? Did enemies ever plunder or violate more 
fiercely when weakened and crippled by the effects of 
a hard-bought victory than when flushed, their veins 
full, they rush upon their prey, with cupidity stimu- 
lated by contempt ? Did any foe ever grant to pusil- 
lanimity what it would have denied to prowess? To 
be conquered is not always to be disgraced. The 
heroes who shall perish in such combats shall not fall 
in vain for their country. Their blood will be the most 
precious, as well as the strongest cement of our Union. 
What is it that constitutes the moral tie of our nation ? 
Is it that paper contract called the Constitution ? Why 
is it that the man of Virginia, the man of Carolina, and 
the man of Massachusetts, are dearer to each other 
than is to either the man of South America or the 
West Indies? Locality has little to do with implanting 
this inherent feeling, and personal acquaintance less. 
Whence, then, does it result but from that moral senti- 
ment which pervades all, and is precious to all, of 
having shared common dangers for the attainment of 
common blessings. The strong ties of every people are 
those which spring from the heart and twine through 

21 



322 SPEECH ON MARITIME PEOTECTION. 

the affections. The family compact of the States has 
this for its basis, that their heroes have mingled their 
blood in the same contests ; that all have a common 
right in their glory ; that, if I may be allowed the 
expression, in the temple of patriotism all have the 
same worship. 

But it is inquired. What effect will this policy have 
upon the present exigency ? I answer. The happiest 
in every aspect. To exhibit a definitive intent to main- 
tain maritime rights by maritime means, what is it but 
to develop new stamina of national character? No 
nation can or has a right to hope respect from others 
which does not first learn to respect itself. And how 
is this to be attained ? By a course of conduct con- 
formable to its duties and relative to its condition. If 
it abandons what it ought to defend, if it flies from the 
field it is bound to maintain, how can it hope for honor ? 
To what other inheritance is it entitled but disgrace? 
Foreign nations, undoubtedly, look upon this union 
with eyes long read in the history of man, and with 
thoughts deeply versed in the effects of passion and 
interest, upon independent States associated by ties so 
apparently slight and novel. They understand well 
that the rivalries among the great interests of such 
States ; the natural envyings which in all countries 
spring between agriculture, commerce, and manufact- 
ures ; the inevitable jealousies and fears of each other 
of South and North, interior and seaboard ; the incipi- 
ent or progressive rancor of party animosity, — are the 
essential weaknesses of sovereignties thus combined. 
Whether these causes shall operate, or whether they 
shall cease, foreign nations will gather from the features 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 323 

of our policy. They cannot believe that such a nation 
is strong in the affections of its associated parts when 
they see the vital interests of whole States abandoned. 
But reverse this policy ; show a definitive and stable 
intent to yield the natural protection to such essential 
interests: then they will respect you. And to power- 
ful nations honor conies attended by safety. 

Mr. Speaker, what is national disgrace ? Of what 
stuff is it composed ? Is a nation disgraced because its 
flag is insulted ; because its seamen are impressed ; 
because its course upon the highway of the ocean is 
obstructed ? No, sir. Abstractedly considered, all this 
is not disgrace. Because all this may happen to a 
nation so weak as not to be able to maintain the dignity 
of its flag, or the freedom of its citizens, or the safety of 
its course. Natural weakness is never disgrace. But, 
sir, this is disgrace, — when we submit to insult and to 
injury which we have the power to prevent or redress. 
Its essential constituents are want of sense or want 
of spirit. When a nation, with ample means for its 
defence, is so thick in the brain as not to put them into 
a suitable state of preparation ; or when, with sufficient 
muscular force, it is so tame in spirit as to seek safety 
not in manly effort, but in retirement, — then a nation 
is disgraced ; then it shrinks from its high and sovereign 
character into that of the tribe of Issachar, crouching 
down between two burdens ; the French burden, on 
the one side, and the British burden on the other, so 
dull, so lifeless, so stupid, that, were it not for its bray- 
ing, it could not be distinguished from the clod of the 
valley. 
f It is impossible for European nations not to know 



324 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

that we are the second commercial country in the 
workl ; that we have more than seven millions of peo- 
ple, with less annual expenditure and more unpledged 
sources of revenue than any nation of the civilized 
world. Yet a nation thus distinguished — abounding 
in wealth, in enterprise, and in power — is seen flying 
away from " the unprofitable contest ; " abandoning the 
field of controversy ; taking refuge behind its own 
doors, and softening the rigors of oppression abroad by 
a comparison with worse torments at home. Ought 
such a nation to ask for respect ? Is there any other 
mode of relief from this depth of disgrace than by a 
change of national conduct and character? 

With respect to Great Britain, it seems impossible 
that such a change in our policy should not be auspi- 
cious. No nation ever did or ever can conduct towards 
one that is true in the same way as it conducts towards 
one that is false to all its obligations. Clear conceptions 
of interest and faithful fulfilment of duty as certainly 
insure, sooner or later, honor and safety, as blindness 
to interest and abandonment of duty do assuredly entail 
disgrace and embarrassment. In relation to the prin- 
ciple which regulates the commercial conduct of Great 
Britain towards the United States, there is much scope 
for diversity of opinion. Perhaps those judge most 
truly who do not attribute to her any very distinct or 
uniform system of action in relation to us, but who 
deem her course to result from views of temporary 
expediency, growing out of the circumstances of the 
time and the character of our administration. If this 
be the case, then whatever course of conduct has a 
tendency to show a change in the character of the 



I 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 325 

Ameiican policy must produce a proportionate change 
in that of the British. And if tameness and systematic 
abandonment of our commercial rights have had the 
effect to biing upon us so many miseries, a contrary 
course of conduct, having for its basis a wise spirit and 
systematic naval support, it may well be hoped, will 
have the opposite effect, — of renewing our prosperity. 
But if it be true, as is so frequently and so confidently 
asserted, that Great Britain is jealous of our commercial 
greatness ; if it be true that she would depress us as 
rivals ; if she begins to regard us as a power which may 
soon curb, if not in aftertiraes spurn, her proud control 
on her favorite element, — then, indeed, she may be dis- 
posed to quench the ardor of our naval enterprise ; then, 
indeed, it may be her care so to shape the course of her 
policy as to deprive our commerce of all hope of its 
natural protection, and to co-operate with and cherish 
such an administration in this country as hates a naval 
force and loves commercial restriction. In this view of 
her policy, — and I am far from asserting it is not cor- 
rect, — is it not obvious that she may be content with 
the present condition of our commerce ? Except ac- 
knowledged colonial vassalage, what state of things 
would be more desirable to her ? The whole sea is her 
own. Her American rival tamely makes cession of it 
to her possession. Our commercial capital is already 
seeking employment in her cities, and our seamen in 
her ships. What then results? Is it not, on this view 
of her policy, undeniable that an administration in this 
country, for the purposes of Great Britain, is such as 
thinks commerce not worth having or not worth defend- 



I 



326 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

ing ; such as, in every scheme of nommal protection, 
meditates to it nothing but additional embarrassment 
and eventual abandonment ? Must not such an admin- 
istration be convenient to British ministry if such be a 
British policy ? And if British ministers should ever 
find such an administration in this country made to 
their hands, may we not anticipate that they will take 
care to manage with a view to its continuance in power? 
Of all policy the most ominous to British ascendency is 
that of a systematic maritime defence of our maritime 
rights. 

The general effect of the policy I advocate is to pro- 
duce confidence at home and respect abroad. These 
are twin shoots from the same stock, and never fail to 
flourish or fade together. Confidence is a plant of no 
mushroom growth and of no artificial texture. It 
springs only from sage councils and generous endeavors. 
The protection you extend must be efiicient and suited 
to the nature of the object you profess to maintain. If 
it be neither adequate nor appropriate, your wisdom 
may be doubted, your motives may be distrusted, but in 
vain you expect confidence. The inhabitants of the 
seaboard will inquire of their own senses and not of 
your logic concerning the reality of their protection. 

As to respect abroad, what course can be more certain 
to insure it? What object more honorable, what more 
dignified, than to behold a great nation pursuing wise 
ends by appropriate means ; rising to adopt a series of 
systematic exertions suited to her power and adequate 
to her purposes ? What object more consolatory to the 
friends, what more paralyzing to the enemies, of our 



SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION". 327 

Union, than to behold the natural jealousies and rivalries, 
which are the acknowledged dangers of our political 
condition, subsiding or sacrificing? What sight more 
exhilarating than to see this great nation once more 
walking forth among the nations of the earth under 
the protection of no foreign shield? peaceful, because 
powerful ; powerful, because united in interests, and 
amalgamated by concentration of those interests in the 
national affections. 

But let the opj)osite policy prevail ; let the essential 
interests of the great component parts of this Union find 
no protection under the national arm ; instead of safety 
let them realize oppression, and the seeds of discord 
and dissolution are inevitably sown in a soil the best 
fitted for their root, and affording the richest nourish- 
ment for their expansion. It may be a long time before 
they ripen ; but sooner or later they will assuredly burst 
forth in all their destructive energies. In the inter- 
mediate period, what aspect does an union thus destitute 
of cement present ? Is it that of a nation keen to dis- 
cern and strong to resist violations of its sovereignty ? 
It has rather the appearance of a casual collection of 
semibarbarous clans, with the forms of civilization, and 
with the rude and rending passions of the savage state : 
in truth, powerful ; yet, as to any foreign effect, im- 
becile : rich in the goods of fortune, yet wanting that 
inherent spirit without which a nation is poor indeed : 
their strength exhausted by struggles for local power ; 
their moral sense debased by low intrigues for personal 
popularity or temporary pre-eminence ; all their thoughts 
turned, not to the safety of the state, but to the eleva- 



328 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 

tion of a chieftain. A people presenting such an aspect, 
what have they to expect abroad ? what but pillage, 
insult, and scorn ? 

The choice is before us. Persist in refusing efficient 
maritime protection ; persist in the system of commercial 
restrictions : what now is, perhaps, prophecy will here- 
after be history. 



SPEECH 

ON THE EELIEF OF SUNDRY MERCHANTS FROM 
PENALTIES INNOCENTLY INCURRED. 

Dec. 14, 1812. 



SPEECH 

ON THE RELIEF OF SUNDRY MERCHANTS FROM 
PENALTIES INNOCENTLY INCURRED. 

Dec. 14, 1812. 



[In the remarks preliminary to the speech of February 25, 
1811, I have related how England refused to comply with the 
conditions of the act repealing non-intercourse with her and 
France, and of the consequent re-enactment of that measure as 
far as she was concerned. After somewhat more than a year, 
just about the time of our declaration of war, June 18, 1812, 
she had thought better of the matter and revoked her Orders in 
Council, which, if done eighteen months earlier, would have 
saved the two countries from a conflict from which neither 
reajied much credit or any advantage. After the revocation, and 
before our declaration of war had reached England, American 
merchants residing there, taking it for granted that the non-inter- 
course would be repealed, if it did not cease, ipso facto, by the 
action of the British ministry, oj^enly and in entire good faith, 
loaded their ships with the prohibited articles and despatched 
them to the United States. But the act was still in force ; war 
had been declared ; the goods were forfeited, and, by the letter of 
the law, three times their value besides. To exact these penal- 
ties was more than even Mr. Madison's government ventured to 
propose. But, as it was in the most pressing need of money, 
Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, devised this plan 
for extracting about nine millions of dollars from the honest 



332 SPEECH ON THE 

error of the importers. The invoice vaUie of the merchandise 
was about eighteen milHons. By the law, the entire importation 
was forfeited, one half to go to the government and the other to 
the informer. Mr. Gallatin proposed to relinquish the informer's 
moiety to the importers, and to put that of the government into 
the Treasury. How he justified to himself this cavalier treat- 
ment of the informers we are not told ; it would certainly not 
have been submitted to without an outcry by that valuable class 
of citizens in our day : but this modified proposition was regarded 
by the sufferers and the impartial part of the public as only a 
mitigated form of spoliation of innocent parties. The resistance 
to its infliction upon them which is expressed in this sj^eech had 
the effect of causing the project to fail and the entire forfeitures 
to be remitted. — Ed.] 

Mr. Quincy (of Massachusetts) said that, in listening 
to the debate, what had impressed his mind the most 
forcibly was the simplicity of the question. He was 
less surprised at the arguments which were urged than 
that any argument was necessary. A mere statement 
of the case, he should have thought, would have settled 
the question. Twenty millions of dollars were said to 
be forfeited to the United States, — an amount equal 
to one-third of the whole national debt. This sum was 
alleged to be due from comparatively a small class of 
men, in particular sections of the country, in the cities 
and on the seaboard. It was distributed among the 
individuals of that class in various proportions. To 
every one of them, the amount demanded is material. 
The greater part of the fortunes of some is at stake. 
To others it is a simple question of prosperity or ruin. 
The principles arising out of the case and connected 
with the decision are, in their nature, so complicated 
and delicate that scarcely two men can be found on the 



EEMISSION OF PENALTIES. 333 

floor of Congress Avho can agree by what scale remission 
shall be graduated, if remitted at all. A case of this 
magnitude, — so important to the public, so critical to 
the individuals, so dubious in point of principle, and so 
consequential in sectional alarm and interest, — it is 
seriously contended, should be referred to the decision 
of a single individual ; that one man should be invested 
with the power to decide the fates of multitudes of his 
fellow-citizens, and decree riches or poverty, not by any 
known rule or standard, but according to his absolute 
will and discretion ! Such is the power seriousl}' con- 
tended for, in a country calling itself free, by men who 
pretend to understand the nature of civil liberty and 
to venerate its principles ! ! 

Mr. Quincy said that the nature of the proposition 
was not more astonishing^ than the main reason urgfed 
in its support. And this was, that the Secretary of the 
Treasury possessed this power alread}^ ; that the law 
now placed it in its hands. As if the greatness of a 
power, and its exceeding the trust which any man ought 
to possess, and its irreconcilableness with the settled 
principles on which public safety in a free country 
depends, were not conclusive either that no such power 
ever was invested, or that the possessor ought to be 
deprived of it. 

Mr. Quincy then proceeded to investigate the general 
powers vested in the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
mitigation or remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. 
He contended that no such power was invested in the 
head of that department as the Secretary had asserted 
in his letter to the Committee of Ways and Means. In 
this letter, the Secretary asserts that " the power to 



334 SPEECH ON THE 

remit the share of the United States, and of all other 
persons, in whole or in part, and on such terms and 
conditions as ma}^ be deemed reasonable and just, is by 
law vested in the Secretary of the Treasury." Mr. 
Quincy said that this was nothing less than the asser- 
tion of an absolute discretion in relation to the subject- 
matter, — a discretion without limit, or principle, or 
measure of control, or rule of decision, except the sov- 
ereign will and pleasure of the individual possessing it. 
For he who can do in relation to any matter or thing, 
in the whole or in the part, and fix such terms and con- 
ditions, as he may deem reasonable and just, has as 
absolute an authority in that matter or thing as heart 
can desire. And if, by any general law, such power be 
invested in any person whatsoever, we have not much 
to boast, in this respect, either of the wisdom or of the 
freedom of our laws. 

The question, then, is, whether this power, thus as- 
serted to exist in himself by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, be vested in him by law. Mr. Quincy said that 
he confessed that, on the first reading of the statute, 
being under the influence of the opinion thus unequiv- 
ocally expressed by the Secretary, and not at once 
perceiving how the terms of law had been wrested to 
the purposes of official construction, he yielded a 
momentary and reluctant assent to the claim of the 
Secretary. Recollecting, however, what a fascinating 
thing absolute power is, and how little imjalicit faith 
any man has a right to claim in a case where the degree 
of his power is dependent upon his own construction ; 
recollecting also the character of the men who, in the 
year 1797, when the law in question was passed, had 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 335 

the reins of power, he began to doubt of the construc- 
tion, and set himself carefully to investigate on what 
grounds this arbitrary discretion, thus obtrusively as- 
serted by the Secretary as existing in himself, was 
founded. He said that the men who, at the time when 
the law in question was passed, presided over the con- 
struction of our laws were not only learned and able 
men and true lovers of their country, but they were 
men, also, deeply versed in the principles of civil lib- 
erty ; they were natives of the soil, and had not been 
educated in the arbitrary doctrines of the civil law, but 
had drank in the essential principles of the ancient 
Saxon common law, as it were, with their mother's 
milk. Such men were not likely to grant so enormous 
a power, by any general terms, even in an unguarded 
moment. For, had reason failed them in a case of this 
nature, instinct would have come to their aid. He 
determined, therefore, to investigate this question, aloof 
from the prejudices which the assertion of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, and the corroborative opinion of the 
Committee of Ways and Means, had created, and set 
himself to examine what were those essential principles 
of civil liberty which lay, as it were, at the base of all 
statutes of this kind, and which were, in their nature, 
so predominant and inherent that no friend of freedom 
could possibly forget them when framing such a statute. 
Mr. Quincy said that, on turning this subject in his 
mind, he had found two principles of the nature Avhich 
he sought. The first was, that the innocent should 
never be confounded with the guilty : of consequence, 
that the law must have been intended to be so con- 
structed as that, as far as possible, the former should 



836 SPEECH ON THE 

always escape, and the latter should always be punished. 
The second was, that the object of the penalty was 
only the enforcement of the provisions of the law ; of 
consequence, that, when this object was attained, there 
ought to be an end of the penalty, which was ever to 
be considered as the sanction or vindicatory branch of 
the law, and never be perverted to the purposes of the 
ways and means of the Treasury. When the terms of 
the statute under consideration were considered in ref- 
erence to these principles, all doubt as to its true con- 
struction vanished. The character of the framers of 
the law was vindicated. No such power as that asserted 
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the sub- 
ject of the penalties, was vested in him. On the con- 
trary, the real grant of power was precise, limited, and 
perfectly consistent with the principles of civil liberty. 

The law contained two clauses, which comprehended 
all the powers relative to this subject vested in the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The words are these. After 
prescribing the modes by which testimony concerning 
the circumstances of the case shall be collected and 
transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, the stat- 
ute proceeds : " Who shall, thereupon, have power to 
mitigate or remit such fine, forfeiture, or penalty, or 
remove such disability, or any part thereof, if, in his 
opinion, the same shall have been incurred without wil- 
ful negligence or any intention of fraud in the person or 
persons incurring the same ; and to direct the prose- 
cution, if any shall have been instituted for the recovery 
thereof, to cease and be discontinued, upon such terms 
or conditions as he may deem reasonable and just." 

From these clauses in the statute, if from any, the 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 337 

Secretary of the Treasury derives that unlimited discre- 
tion, which he asserts in his letter to the Committee of 
Ways and Means to be vested in his department. Now 
these clauses are distinct and substantive, having rela- 
tion to two objects, also distinct and substantive. The 
first clause relates to the penalty incurred ; the second, 
to the prosecution commenced. 

As to the first clause relative to the penalty, fine, or 
forfeiture incurred, so far from vesting an unlimited 
discretionary power, it vests, strictly speaking, no dis- 
cretion whatever. It is in truth a power to mitigate, 
remit, or remove, according to a stated and specified 
statute standard. This authority is to exercise his 
judgment, upon the circumstances of the case, touching 
the existence or non-existence of either of two partic- 
ulars stated in the statute, wilful negligence or fraud. 
Tf ei ther exist, he has the power to remit. If either 
exist but in a partial degree, he has the power to grad- 
uate the penalty, fine, or forfeiture to the degree of 
guilt. And this is his whole power resulting from this 
clause. The head of the Treasur}' is a mere tribunal to 
decide, whether the statute guilt has been incurred, or 
any part of it, and according to that judgment to grad- 
uate the fine, penalty, or forfeiture. If there be no 
guilt, his power of mitigation, that is of graduation, is 
at an end. In such case it cannot be exercised. The 
single authority he has is to remit altogether. He has 
no more right to talk of " profits " or " extra profits," 
or " equivalents," or to intimate boons or " loans," as 
the grounds of remission, than he has to decree the 
whole penalty into his own pocket for his private use. 
The plain purpose of the law is, that guilt should suffer 

22 



838 SPEECH ON THE 

and that innocence should escape. And by guilt and 
innocence is only meant statute guilt or statute inno- 
cence. Wliatever is either wilful negligence or fraud is 
statute guilt. Whatever is neither one nor the other is 
innocence. It is easy to see how perfectly reconcilable 
this is to the established principles of civil liberty. 
Instead of a sharp-scented statesman, invested with 
powers to hunt among fines, penalties, and forfeitures, 
for the ways and means of the Treasury, we find only a 
benignant and wisely constituted tribunal, with power 
to judge, upon the circumstances of the case, how far 
any statute guilt has been incurred, and to graduate 
suffering according to the degree which shall appear. | 
As to the second clause, relative to the prosecution | 
commenced, there is, indeed a discretion invested in the 
head of the Treasury. But it is a discretion extremely 
limited in its nature, arising out of the necessity of the 
case, extending only to very subordinate considerations, 
and in the exercise of which there is little or no tempta- 
tion to abuse. It relates only to the terms and condi- 
tions on which he may direct the prosecution to cease. 
These he is permitted to fix " as he may deem reason- 
able and just." That such a power is necessary is obvi- 
ous, because, although the innocent has a right to be 
free from the imputation and penalty of guilt, yet the 
costs and expenses which have been incurred is a loss 
which must fall somewhere. The nature of tilings has 
thrown it upon him, and no principle of justice can 
transfer it to another. But the discretionary power here 
given is, in the nature of things, extremely limited, and 
extends only to those particulars which are incident to 
the prosecution, to costs, expenses and sometimes com- 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 339 

peiisation to custom-house officers for services rendered, 
either in their seizure or in the care of tlie property. It 
is obvious, also, that in exercising snch a discretion the 
danger of abuse is limited, not only from the circum- 
scribed nature of the sphere, but from the circumstances 
in which it is exercised. He has no official inducement 
to abuse his power. The particulars which are incident 
to a prosecution are distinct, notorious, and easily to 
be ascertained ; and, as to compensation due to the cus- 
tom-house officer, the Secretary having, by no possibility, 
any interest, personal or official, in the decision, may 
safely be intrusted with it ; and ought to be, out of 
regard to the indemnification of the officer. Here, 
again, there is no interference with the established prin- 
ciples of civil libert3\ The question relative to causing 
the prosecution to cease has no connection with guilt or 
innocence. It is merely ascertaining the inevitable loss 
which he must bear on whom the bolt of heaven has 
fallen. If a compensation is decreed, it is for the cus- 
tom-house officer and not the Treasury. It is decreed 
not as a part of the penalty, for that is incurred only in 
consequence of guilt, which is in this case out of the 
question ; but is decreed only as a part of that inevita- 
ble loss which some one must bear, and of course he on 
wdiom the lot is cast. 

When the statute is considered, it will easily be seen 
wdiat are the means by which the Secretary of the 
Treasury grasps at this unlimited and arbitrary discre- 
tion which he asserts in his letter to the committee. It 
is by confounding what is distinct, and associating what 
are separate. By a sort of Treasuiy amalgam, he con- 
solidates both clauses of the statute into one, and 



340 SPEECH ON THE 

attaches the power of annexing " terms and conditions 
which he shall deem reasonable and just" to the clause 
which has relation to the penalty, instead of restricting 
it to the clause which has relation to the prosecution. 
This may be a very happy construction for the Treasury, 
but it is a very ruinous one for the citizen : at least, so 
it is likely to prove, judging by the proposition now 
under consideration. 

If any one asks why these powers are to be con- 
strued as though distinct and substantive, instead of 
amalgamated and consolidated, I answer on four plain 
and solid grounds : the terms of the law ; the policy of 
the law ; the nature of the thing ; and the established 
principles of civil liberty. 

The terms of the law are select and appropriate. 
Those connected with the remission or mitigation, in 
whole or in part, not only give the power, but limit the 
exercise of it by an express statute standard, — he is to 
do the one or the other, according to the non-existence 
or the degree of existence of " wilful negligence or in- 
tention of fraud." Those connected with the causing 
the prosecution to cease are equally precise. The power 
of annexing terms and conditions, such as he may deem 
reasonable and just, relates to that object, — the causing 
of the prosecution to cease, — and nothing else. 

The policy of the law is not less corroborative of this 
construction. It is a remedial statute ; as such it must 
be construed liberally. Its policy is to suffer all the 
innocent and none of the guilty to escape. For this 
purpose it has set up a statute standard by which the 
Secretary is to decide who is innocent and the degree 
of innocence, and graduate the penalty accordingly. 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 341 

Therefore it is that the power of affixing conditions is 
not annexed by the terms of the law to the power of 
mitigating- and remitting. To the degree of statute 
guilt which a man has incurred, the Secretary is morally 
bound to punish. But when of this degree there is 
none, he is then morally bound to acquit. Of " terms 
and conditions " here there is no use ; for guilt must be 
punished according to its degree, and innocence must 
escape. Now the law permits no "terms or conditions " 
to be made with the innocent ; no " equivalent " is asked 
for not confounding them with the guilty. It is the 
policy, it is the delight, of the law that they should go 
free and unspotted, according to their innate purity. 

The nature of the thing shows also that the power of 
annexing such " terms and conditions as he may deem 
reasonable and just " exclusively belongs to the power 
of causing the prosecution to cease. For, from the nat- 
ure of the thing, the question concerning causing the 
prosecution to cease is subordinate in point of impor- 
tance and secondary in point of time to the question 
concerning mitigating or remitting the penalty. For 
whether the decision of the Secretary be guilty of a part 
or not guilty at all, the Secretary's power is in the same 
state. It has thus far done its work. The degree of 
guilt or innocence is ascertained ; the penalty is re- 
mitted or graduated. The only remaining prerogative 
of the Secretary relates to the prosecution. Here he 
possesses the discretion before noticed. But it is a 
power which, from the nature of the thing, cannot re- 
troact, and bring again innocence or guilt into view. 
That is already settled, at least in principle, and must 
be before the question concerning the prosecution can 
be agitated. 



342 SPEECH ON THE 

But there is a stronger argument than all these, re- 
sulting from the established i^rinciples of civil liberty. 
What is the nature of that proud consciousness which 
freemen feel and delight to acknowledge ? and of what 
stuff is it composed ? What is it but the certainty with 
which each individual is inspired that he holds life, lib- 
erty, and property, subject only to known laws and 
aloof from the will of any individual ? So long as he is 
innocent, he has no compromise to make, no equivalent 
to offer, no truckling to assume. He on whom any fine, 
penalty, or forfeiture of the collection law has fallen by 
any mischance or by the act of God, has as much right 
to possess this consciousness as the proudest mortal of 
us all. He stands before the tribunal of the Secretary 
not to chaffer for a pardon. He is innocent. If there 
be any portion of the statute guilt, graduate the punish- 
ment ; but if there be none, cruel, wicked, despotic is 
that construction which obliges him to compound for his 
escape from a statute framed only to punish guilt ; to 
pay " profits ; " to make " forced loans ; " to promise 
" equivalents." For what ? Why, truly that, though 
innocent, he should not partake the fate of guilt. 

When I speak of innocence and guilt, I mean always 
statute innocence or statute guilt. I have nothing to 
do with the money dreams of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, nor with the day dreams of the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy). He did not pretend, 
no man has pretended, no man can pretend, that there 
was any intention of fraud or any wilful negligence in 
the merchants whose case is now before the House. 
But he told us at one time that their crime consisted 
" in purchasing in Great Britain ; " at another, that it 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 343 

consisted " in not co-operating with the poHcy of the 
American government." Grant, for argument's sake, all 
the guilt these charges include. Is that wilful negli- 
gence or intention of fraud ? Free of this, are they not 
innocent ? Innocent, are they not entitled to entire 
remission ? 

This construction for which I contend, I think I 
can safely state, is conformable to the practice of the 
Treasury, antecedent to the accession of the present 
Secretary. At least so it appears, from the book of 
abstracts of the Treasury, entirely to my satisfaction. 
Yet, upon this point, I would not be considered as 
expressing myself with absolute certainty, as I have not 
had an opportunity to examine the original records of 
the cases, nor yet to converse with the Secretary of the 
Treasury, although I have been twice at his office for 
that purpose. The abstracts of the Treasury, ante- 
cedent to that period, do not indicate any thing like a 
compromise with innocence for the sake of profit to the 
Treasury. The judgments stated are " remission " or 
" mitigation " on payment of fees or duties or costs, and 
sometimes of a sum certain ; fifty or a hundred dollars 
to the revenue officers, or to parties other than the 
United States. Although I do not conceive the former 
practice of the Treasury very material on the point, yet 
it is some satisfaction to state that the early decisions 
to which I allude seem to be guided by this principle, 
that the Treasury should never gain any thing from fine, 
penalty, or forfeiture, except in case of guilt. The first 
case I could find, although there may have been others 
antecedent, was that of Robert Gillespie in June, 1802. 
It was the case of an importation of porter in casks, of 



844 SPEECH ON THE 

less capacity than those required by law. The judg- 
ment of the Secretary of the Treasury was : No wilful 
negligence or fraud ; claim of the United States released 
on payment of costs and one-fourth net proceeds. 

Another case was that of Theodoric Armistead, 
decided in Februar}^, 1812. Brandy had been imported 
in casks of less capacity than required by law. The 
judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury was : No 
wilful negligence or fraud ; claim of the United States 
released on payment of costs and charges, and two cents 
per gallon for the use of the United States. And this 
levy is expressly stated to be in addition to the duty 
established by law. Why, Mr. Speaker, what a prin- 
ciple is this? A Secretary of the Treasury declares, 
in so many words, that the guilt specified in the statute 
to which the penalty is annexed does not exist, yet 
mulcts the individual at his discretion as the condition 
on which innocence is not made subject to the penalty ! 
If the Secretary of the Treasury can lay a tax of '* two 
cents per gallon," why not of twenty ; if he can take 
" one-fourth of the proceeds," according to his arbitrary 
will, why not the half or the whole ? In these cases 
what has become of that essential principle of civil 
liberty, that innocence and guilt shall never be con- 
founded ? Both Gillespie and Armistead, though clear 
by the statute, have gone away from the legal tribunal 
taxed by the Secretary. I dare say it will be said, they 
were both satisfied. Doubtless, sir. The Secretary 
had resolved himself into an arbitrary tribunal, and 
what private individual dare question the opinion of the 
Secretary? But it is the business of the legislature to 
consider subjects in their principles and consequences, 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 345 

and not 1)}' the convenience of this or that individual. 
The importance of withstanding the beginnings of 
oppressive encroachments could never be better illus- 
trated than by the instances before us. These, and 
cases like these, were the nest-eggs of the Treasury ; and 
now we see what a monstrous brood is likely to be pro- 
duced. The Secretary has gone on, year after year, exer- 
cising an arbitrary discretion in cases of small amount 
and affecting individuals only, till at last he starts up a 
gigantic power, authorized to carve what he pleases out 
of twenty millions of dollars, and to settle the destinies 
of a whole class of citizens ! If doctrines and construc- 
tions like these are to receive the sanction of this legis- 
lature, come, Bonaparte, as soon as thou wilt, and thou 
shalt find cabinet principles suited to all thy purposes ! 

I have hitherto considered the case of the merchants' 
bonds as though it were strictly within the principle of 
the collection laws. And the bearing of my argument 
has been this, — that if no such power as is asserted by 
the Secretary is truly vested in him, in the cases of the 
ordinary revenue, that much less ought he to be permitted 
to exercise this most dangerous power in cases of so 
much magnitude, and in all aspects so critical, as are 
those under consideration. But is it true that the fines, 
penalties, and forfeitures, accruing under the restrictive 
system, have no other claims for relief than those gen- 
eral ones which arise under the collection laws ? Alas, 
sir ! the nature of these laws are such as to make those 
claims far higher and more impressive. 

I shall touch this subject of the restrictive system 
with as much delicacy as possible. I wish not to offend 
any prejudices. I know that the zeal and ardent affec- 



k 



346 SPEECH ON THE 

tion which some gentlemen show for this restrictive 
system ver}^ much resemble the loves of those who, 
according to ancient legends, had taken philtres and 
love-powders. The ecstasy of desire is just in propor- 
tion to the deformity of the object. I shall not, how- 
ever, meddle with that topic any further than it is 
connected with the subject before the House. 

A great deal is said about the policy of the restrictive 
system, and the necessity of a rigorous enforcement of 
it. Now it appears to me that the desire to make this 
system effectual ought to induce the release of these 
bonds, and not their enforcement. The object of the 
restrictive system is averred to be to produce a change 
in the measures of the British cabinet by the suffering 
which the loss of our commerce occasions to her citizens. 
If this be the policy, then those measures are beyond all 
question the best calculated to insure its success whose 
tendency is to diminish the suffering as far as possible 
of the citizens of your own country. The best chance 
for success must necessarily be by convincing the think- 
ing part of the community in Great Britain that, while 
they suffer much, we suffer little or nothing. Were 
such the case, then indeed the system might have some 
hope of a prosperous result. But, when suffering there 
is found to be attended with suffering here, then the 
whole potency of the restrictive system results in this 
question, — which can suffer the most, or which can bear 
suffering the best. And what judgment will the peo- 
ple of that country be likely to form, in relation to the 
degree this people suffer or their capacity to endure? 
when a sweep of twenty millions of dollars is seriously 
advocated by some ; and when a majority seem inclined 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 347 

to turn tlie penalties of the restrictive sj'stem, not into 
a mean of punishment of fraudulent or wilful violations, 
but into an instrument of ways and means of the Treas- 
ury ? Does it need any ghost from the dead, or seer 
from the skies, to tell the people of Great Britain that, 
in a free country, such a sj'stem of oppression must be 
short-lived, and that its supporters must soon become 
detested ? So that, if the policy of the system be con- 
sulted, it requires that its rigor should be softened as it 
respects your own citizens. 

But are there not other considerations materially dis- 
tinguishing the character of the restrictive system from 
that of your collection laws, and requiring a correspond- 
ent mildness in the construction of the laws relative to 
the former which the latter cannot claim ? Concerning 
the constitutional power of the national legislature to 
pass the laws of collection, there never was any question. 
But concerning its power, under the Constitution, to 
pass such a body of laws as those which compose the 
restrictive system, there always has been, there is, and 
ever will be, a question. A very great majority in all 
the commercial States always have denied that the 
power of regulating commerce included the power of 
annihilating it altogether. They believe nothing in the 
project ; and they believe as little in your right to con- 
vert their only means of prosperity to the purposes of 
hostility. They ever will deny that any power is vested 
in this or any other body of men to bring down direct 
and certain ruin on the whole commercial section of the 
country under pretence of producing an indirect and 
uncertain pressure upon a foreign nation. Surely this 
is a reason for a mild exercise of the power arising under 



348 SPEECH ON THE 

these restrictive laws. If a right be dubious, the 
exercise of it ought not to be made more obnoxious 
by oppression. 

Not only the authority is dubious, but the provisions 
of the law outrage every received notion of legislative 
prudence and foresight. They " outherod Herod." In 
six years Congress have passed twenty laws creating at 
least one hundred new offences. These offences are 
constituted of acts, previously not only innocent, but 
laudable ; not only laudable, but they were the most 
common and necessary acts of whole sections of country 
and whole classes of men. These new offences subject 
the offenders to the most grievous penalties, fines, and 
forfeitures, known to the revenue laws ; and are involved 
in such a complexity of enactments, re-enactments, pro- 
visions, proclamations, whole revocations and half revo- 
cations, that no man under heaven can tell when he is 
safe, or how or where to steer his course, without being 
meshed in the web spread for him by your statutes. 
Some idea maybe had of the degree of oppression added 
to these penal laws, by the restrictive system, from 
comparing the applications for remission antecedent to 
the commencement of that system with those subse- 
quent to it. Antecedent to the 19th of AjDril, 1806, 
when your restrictive system commenced, all the appli- 
cations for remission in the fifteen previous years 
amounted to somewhat short of thirteen hundred. In 
the six years the restrictive system has been in opera- 
tion, there have been nine hundred and fifty-four, and, 
if to these be added those known at the department 
and not yet acted upon, the whole number exceeds one 
thousand. So that the annual average of applications 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 349 

for remission, since the restrictive system, is double the 
annual average of applications antecedent to that period. 
In other words, 3'^ou have doubled the number of the 
snares of the law, and the cries of its victims are heard 
in a double proportion. Do a-ou think that, when the 
web of the law is thus extended beyond all reason 
and precedent, you can strain its penalties to the ex- 
tremest rigor of the statute without public sentiment 
revolting against you? Is it in human nature to see its 
fellow struggling innocently in the toils of unnatural 
laws, without coming to its aid and taking vengeance 
on its persecutors ? 

I know it will be said that it is not proposed to con- 
fiscate the whole, but only a part. In other words, you 
will take not all that you want, but all that you dare. 
To this I reply, You have no right to a single dollar, not 
to a cent. The merchants are free of all legal taint. 
They are free from all statute guilt. There is in the 
case neither " wilful negligence nor fraud." The Sec- 
retary of the Treasury does not pretend either. But 
this is his situation, and this is the secret of his applica- 
tion to Congress for their sanction to his exercise of this 
great discretionary power. Confiscate the whole of this 
immense amount, ruin hundreds and thousands on ac- 
count of the breach of the letter of a penal statute, 
he dare not. Mitigate, upon any principle which would 
aid the Treasury in its necessities, he could not. He 
therefore transfers the whole matter to the broad shoul- 
ders of the legislature ; talks about " the magnitude and 
unforeseen nature of the case ; " asserts roundly an un- 
limited discretion existing in his department; tells of 
" profits and extra profits " made by the merchants ; of 



I 



350 SPEECH ON THE 

the " tax levied " by them on the community ; and sums 
up the whole matter with a hint that " it was thought 
proper not to exercise his authority until Congress had 
taken the subject into consideration, and prescribed, if 
they thought proper, the course to be pursued." Well, 
sir, and what do we witness now that the subject is 
before Congress ? Why, we see every friend of the 
Secretary, every man who is supposed to be in his par- 
ticular confidence, advocating that Congress " should 
think projjer to prescribe no course whatever to be pur- 
sued," but refer the whole to the absolute discretion of 
the Secretary. Can any man witness all this and not 
understand the meaning ? To my ear it is as plain as 
though he uttered it in so man}^ words on this floor : 
" The poverty of the Treasury and not my will consents. 
If Congress will take the odium and the risk, I will take 
the knife and the flesh, and I will cut where and just as 
much as you shall authorize." 

I shall not be able to speak upon this subject, I fear, 
without offending the nice sensibilities of some gentle- 
men in the House. Of late an opinion seems to be 
gaining ground upon this floor that a member cannot 
denominate a doctrine or principle to be base or wicked 
without attributing those qualities to those who may 
have happened to advocate such doctrine or principle ; 
and this, too, notwithstanding he expressly declares that 
he has no intention of appl34ng attributes to such per- 
sons, nor even intimating that their view is the same 
with his own upon the subject. I protest, sir, against 
such a restriction of the rights of debate as totally in-. 
consistent with the necessary freedom of public investi- 
gation. It is not only the right but it is the duty of 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 351 

every man to whose moral perception any thing pro- 
posed or asserted seems base or wicked to brand such 
proposition or assertion with its appropriate epithet. 
He owes this duty not only to the public, but to the 
individual who has been unfortunate or mistaken 
enough to advocate such an opinion or make such as- 
sertion. And provided he does this as the state of his 
own perception on the subject, and without attributing 
motives or similar perceptions of the thing to others, 
not only there is no reasonable ground of offence, but, 
on the contrary, such a course is the only one reconcila- 
ble with duty. How else shall the misguided or mis- 
taken be roused from their moral lethargy or blindness 
to a sense of the real condition or nature of things ? 
What mortal has an intellect so clear as not sometimes 
to have his view of things doubtful or obscure ? Whose 
moral standard is so fixed and perfect as that it never 
fails him at the moment of need ? If, after these explana- 
tions, any person takes an exception at the statement of 
my perceptions on this subject, and any hot humor should 
fly out into vapor upon the occasion, — it has its liberty, 
— I shall regard it no more than " the snapping of a 
chestnut in a farmer's fire." 

I say, then, Mr. Speaker, that to my view, — let it be 
understood, sir, I do not assert that it is even the true 
view, much less that it is the view of any gentleman 
who advocates an opposite doctrine, — I say that to my 
view, and for my single self, I would as soon be con- 
cerned in a highway robbery as in this Treasury attempt. 
Sir, I think a highway robbery a little higher in point 
of courage, and a little less in point of iniquity. In 
point of courage there is obviously no comparison. In 



352 SPEECH ON THE 

point of the quality of the moral purpose, the robber 
who puts his pistol to your breast only uses his power 
to get your property. He attacks nothing but your 
person. But in this Treasury attempt the reputation of 
the victim is to be attacked to make an apology for con- 
fiscating his property. Guilt is alleged, — guilt, of which 
he is clear by the terms of the law, — for the purpose of 
making him, though innocent, compound for escaping 
the penalty. What is this but making calumny the 
basis of plunder ? 

This is not the view of a solitary individual. I have 
letters on this subject from men not merchants, nor, as I 
am apprised, particularly connected with the mercantile 
class, whose language is perfectly similar to that I have 
expressed. Indeed, sir, some exceed even these ex- 
pressions in bitterness and indignation. Men look very 
differently at a question of this kind when they are 
removed a thousand miles from the sufferers, and see 
the principle through the fascinating medium of Treas- 
ury relief, than when they stand by the side of the vic- 
tims, and see distress and ruin entailed upon innocence, 
or, what in a moral view is worse, witness innocence 
compelled to compound for mercy as though it were 
guilt ! 

I have been told, sir, that this state of opinion ought 
to be concealed ; that it was calculated to offend. I 
have been also told that we on this side of the House 
ought not to take any part in this debate ; that a party 
current would be made to set upon the question, and 
this to the merchants was inevitable ruin. To all this I 
have but one answer. My sense of duty allows no com- 
promise on this occasion nor any concealment. I stand 



REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 353 

not on this floor as a commercial agent, huckstering for 
a bargain. As one of the representatives of the people 
of Massachusetts, I maintain the rights of these men, 
not because they are merchants, but because they are 
citizens. The standard by which their rights are pro- 
posed to be measured may be made the common stand- 
ard for us all. There will soon be no safety for any 
man, if fines, penalties, and forfeitures be once estab- 
lished as the ways and means of the Treasury. 

If I could wish that evil might be done that good 
might result, I should hope that you would confiscate 
the property of these merchants. If such a disposition 
really prevails in the national legislature towards this 
class of men, it is desirable that it should be known. 
Act out your whole character. Show the temper which 
is in you. The sooner will the people of the commercial 
States understand what they owe to themselves and to 
their section of country when there is no longer any 
veil over the purposes of the cabinet and its sup- 
porters. 

But, it will be asked, what will become in the mean 
time of the individuals whose whole fortunes are at 
stake ? Trembling for the prospects of themselves and 
their families, they stand, like thrice-knouted Russians, 
before the Treasury czar and autocrat. I say, sir, let 
them be true to themselves and true to their class and 
true to their country, and they have nothing to fear. 
Let them remember that it is under the pretexts of law 
that all tyranny makes its advances. It bribes the 
avarice of the many to permit it to oppress the few. 
It talks of necessity, — necessity, the beggar's cloak, the 
tyrant's plea. Let the merchants refuse all compromise, 

23 



354 SPEECH ON THE REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 

whether in the shape of loans or of equivalents or of com- 
mutation for extra profits. Let them scorn, while inno- 
cent, to pay any part of a penalty which is due only in 
case of guilt ; fly to the States, and claim their con- 
stitutional interposition ; interest their humanity to 
afford a shield against so grievous a tyranny ; above 
all, let them throw themselves upon the moral senti- 
ment of the community, which will never countenance, 
when once made to realize the nature of, the oppression. 
And let this be their consolation that, as in the natural 
so it is often in the moral and political world, the dark- 
est hour of the night is that which precedes the first 
dawning of the day. 



SPEECH 

ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
Jan. 5, 1813. 



SPEECH 

ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

Jan. 5, 1813. 



[This speech, with which I shall conclude this collectioa, was 
one of the most effective — the most so, probably, unless with the 
exception of the one on the Admission of Louisiana — that Mr. 
Quincy ever delivered. It came at the moment when party 
spirit raged the most furiously ; and it certainly did not have, nor 
did it propose to have, any tendency to calm its violence. In his 
old age he declared that he stood by it in its substance and in its 
form, and that " he shrunk not from the judgment of after-times." 
And he had no reason to do so. Keen as is its invective, bitter 
as is its sarcasm, and severe and heavy as are its denunciations, 
the facts on which all these rest are clearly stated and ful'y sus- 
tained. It was this, indeed, which gave them their force and their 
sting and aroused the rage of the friends of the administration to 
the height of fury. For three or four days Mr. Quincy and his 
speech formed the object of the attack and denunciation of the 
democratic speakers, with Mr. Clay, wlio left the Speaker's chair 
for the purpose, at their head. But these things moved him not, 
or were accepted as unwilling testimonies to the strength of the 
position he had taken up. Though most sensitive to any thing 
that could affect his true honor and real reputation, Mr. Quincy 
was singularly indifferent to all attacks made upon him in 
Congress or by the press, which he knew were not deserved. No 
one was ever more scrupulously careful to make sure that his 



358 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

words and actions, as a public man, were exactly true and just, j 
and none more unaffectedly indifferent as to what was thought or 1 
said of the one or the other by friend or foe. — Ed.] 



Mr. Speaker, — I fear that the state of my health may 
prevent my doing justice to my sentiments concerning 
this bilL I will, however, make the attempt, though I 
should fail in it. 

The bill proposes that twenty thousand men should 
be added to the existing military establishment. This, 
at present, consists of thirty-five thousand men. So 
that the effect of this bill is to place at the disposal of 
the executive an army of fifty-five thousand. It is not 
pretended that this addition is wanted either for defence 
or for the relief of the Indian frontier. On the con- 
trary, it is expressly acknowledged that the present 
establishment is sufficient for both of those objects. 
But the purpose for which these twenty thousand men 
are demanded is the invasion of Canada. This is un- 
equivocally avowed by the Chairman of the Committee 
of Foreign Relations (Mr. D. R. Williams), the organ, 
as is admitted, of the will and the wishes of the Ameri- 
can cabinet. 

The bill brings necessarily into deliberation the con- 
quest of Canada, either as an object in itself desirable, 
or inferentially advantageous by its effect in producing 
an early and honorable peace. 

Before I enter upon the discussion of those topics 
which naturally arise from this state of the subject, I 
will ask your indulgence for one moment, while I make 
a few remarks upon this intention of the American cab- 
inet, thus unequivocally avowed. I am induced to this 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 359 

from the knowledge which I have that this design is 
not deemed to be serious by some men of both political 
parties, as w^ell within this Honse as out of it. I know 
that some of the friends of the present administration do 
consider the proposition as a mere feint, made for the 
purpose of putting a good face upon things, and of 
strengthening the hope of a successful negotiation by 
exciting the apprehensions of the British cabinet for the 
fate of their colonies. I know, also, that some of those 
who are opposed in political sentiment to the men wdio 
are now at the head of affairs laugh at these schemes of 
invasion, and deem them hardly worth controversy, on 
account of their opinion of the imbecility of the Ameri- 
can cabinet and the embarrassment of its resources. 

I am anxious that no doubt should exist upon this 
subject, either in the House or in the nation. Whoever 
considers the object of this bill to be any other than that 
which has been avowed is mistaken. Whoever believes 
this l)ill to be a means of peace, or any thing else than 
an instrument of vigorous and long-protracted war, is 
grievously deceived. And whoever acts under such 
mistake or such deception wall have to lament one of 
the grossest, and perhaps one of the most critical, errors 
of his political life.. I warn, therefore, my political 
opponents — those honest men, of which I know there 
are some who, paying only a general attention to the 
course of public affairs, submit the guidance of their 
opinions to the men who stand at the helm — not to 
vote for this bill under any belief that its object is to aid 
negotiation for peace. Let such gentlemen recur to 
their past experience on similar occasions. They will 
find that it has been always the case, whenever any 



360 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

obnoxious measure is about to be passed, that its passage 
is assisted by the aid of some such collateral sugges- 
tions. No sooner do the cabinet perceive that any 
potion which they intend to administer is loathed by a 
considerable part of the majority, and that their appre- 
hensions are alive lest it should have a scouring effect 
upon their popularity, than certain under-operators are 
set to work, whose business it is to amuse the minds and 
beguile the attention of the patients while the dose is 
swallowing. The language always is, " Trust the cabi- 
net doctors. The medicine will not operate as you 
imagine, but quite another way." After this manner 
the fears of men are allayed, and the purposes of the 
administration are attained under suggestions very dif- 
ferent from the true motives. Thus the embargo, 
which has since been unequivocally acknowledged to 
have been intended to coerce Great Britain, was adopted, 
as the executive asserted, " to save our essential re- 
sources." So also, when the present war was declared 
against Great Britain, members of the House were 
known to state that they voted for it under the sugges- 
tion that it would not be a war of ten days ; that it was 
known that Mr. Foster had instructions to make defini- 
tive arrangements in his pocket ; and that the United 
States had only to advance to tlie point of war, and the 
whole business would be settled. And now an army 
which in point of numbers Cromwell might envy, greater 
than that with which Csesar passed the Rubicon, is to 
be helped through a reluctant Congress, under the sug- 
gestion of its being only a parade force, to make nego- 
tiation successful ; that it is the incipient state of a 
project for a grand pacification ! 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 361 

I warn also my political friends. These gentlemen 
are apt to place great reliance on their own intelligence 
and sagacity. Some of these will tell you that the 
invasion of Canada is impossible. They ask where are 
the men, where is the money, to be obtained? And 
they talk very wisely concerning common-sense and 
common prudence, and will show with much learning 
how this attempt is an offence against both the one and 
the otlier. But, sir, it has been my lot to be an observer 
of the character and conduct of the men now in power, 
for these eight years past. And I state without hesita- 
tion that no scheme ever was, or ever will be, rejected 
by them merely on account of its running counter to 
the ordinary dictates of common-sense and common 
prudence. On the contrary, on that very account, I 
believe, it more likely to be both suggested and adopted 
by them. And — what may appear a paradox — for 
that very reason the chance is rather increased that 
it will be successful. 

I could illustrate this position twenty ways. I shall 
content myself with remarking only upon two instances, 
and those recent, — the present war, and the late inva- 
sion of Canada. When war against Great Britain was 
proposed at the last session, there were thousands in 
these United States — and, I confess to you, I was myself 
among the number — who believed not one word of the 
matter. I put my trust in the old-fashioned notions of 
common-sense and common prudence. That a people 
which has been more than twenty years at peace should 
enter upon hostilities against a people which had been 
twenty years at war ; that a nation whose army and 
navy were little more than nominal should engage in 



362 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

war with a nation possessing one of the best appointed 
armies and the most powerful marine on the globe ; that 
a country to which neutrality had been a perpetual har- 
vest should throw that great blessing away for a contro- 
versy in which nothing was to be gained and every 
thing valuable put in jeopardy, — from these and in- 
numerable like considerations the idea seemed so absurd 
that I never once entertained it as possible. And now, 
after war has been declared, the whole affair seems so 
extraordinary^ and so utterly irreconcilable to any pre- 
vious suggestions of wisdom and duty, that I know not 
what to make of it or how to believe it. Even at this 
moment my mind is very much in the state of certain 
Pennsylvanian Germans, of whom I have heard it 
asserted that they are taught to believe bj^ their polit- 
ical leaders, and do at this moment consider, the allega- 
tion that war is at present existing between the United 
States and Great Britain to be a '" federal falsehood." 

It was just so with respect to the invasion of Canada. 
I heard of it last June. I laughed at the idea, as did 
multitudes of others, as an attempt too absurd for 
serious examination. I was in this case, again, beset 
by common-sense and common prudence. That the 
United States should precipitate itself upon the un- 
offending people of that neighboring colony, unmindful 
of all previously subsisting amities, because the parent 
state, three thousand miles distant, had violated some 
of our commercial rights ; that we should march inland 
to defend our ships and seamen ; that, with raw troops, 
hastily collected, miserably appointed, and destitute of 
discipline, we should invade a country defended by 
veteran forces, at least equal in point of numbers to the 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 363 

invading army ; that boiint}'- should be offered, and 
proclamations issued, inviting the subjects of a foreign 
power to treason and rebellion under the influences of a 
quarter of the country upon which a retort of the same 
nature was so obvious, so easy, and in its consequences 
so awful, — in every aspect, the design seemed so 
fraught with danger and disgrace that it appeared 
absolutely impossible that it should be seriously enter- 
tained. Those, however, who reasoned after this manner 
were, as the event proved, mistaken. The war was 
declared. Canada was invaded. We were in haste to 
plunge into these great difficulties, and we have now 
reason, as well as leisure enough, for regret and re- 
pentance. 

The great mistake of all those who reasoned concern- 
ing 'the war and the invasion of Canada, and concluded 
that it was impossible that either should be seriously 
intended, resulted from this, that they never took into 
consideration the connection of both those events with 
the great election for the chief magistracy which was 
then pending. It never was sufficiently considered by 
them that plunging into war with Great Britain was 
among the conditions on which support for the presi- 
dency was made dependent. They did not understand 
that an invasion of Canada was to be, in truth, only a 
mode of carrying on an electioneering campaign. But, 
since events have explained political purposes, there is 
no difficulty in seeing the connections between projects 
and interests. It is noAV apparent to the most mole- 
sighted how a nation may be disgraced, and yet a cabi- 
net attain its desired honors. All is clear. A country 
may be ruined in making an administration happy. 



364 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

I said, Mr. Speaker, that such strange schemes, 
apparently irreconcilable to common-sense and common 
prudence, were on that very account, more likely to be 
successful. Sir, there is an audacity which sometimes 
stands men instead both of genius and strength. And 
most assuredly he is most likely to perform that which 
no man ever did before, and will never be likely to do 
again, who has the boldness to undertake that which 
no man ever thought of attempting in time past, and 
no man will ever think of attempting in time future. 
I would not, however, be understood as intimating that 
this cabinet project of invasion is impracticable, either 
as it respects the collection of means and instruments 
or in the ultimate result. On the contrary, sir, I deem 
both very feasible. Men may be obtained. For if forty 
dollars bounty cannot obtain them, a hundred dollars 
bou;ity may, and the intention is explicitly avowed not 
to suffer the attainment of the desired army to be pre- 
vented by any vulgar notions of economy. Money may 
be obtained. What by means of the increased popu- 
larity derived from the augmentation of the navy, what 
by opening subscription offices in the interior of the 
country, what by large premiums, the cupidity of the 
moneyed interest may be tempted beyond the point of 
patriotic resistance, and all the attained means being 
diverted to the use of the army, pecuniary resources 
may be obtained, ample at least for the first year. 
And, sir, let an army of thirty thousand men be col- 
lected, let them be put under the command of a popular 
leader, let them be officered to suit his purposes, let 
them be flushed with victories and see the fascinating 
career of military glory opening upon them, and they 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 365 

will not thereafter ever be deficient in resources. If 
they cannot obtain their pay by your votes, they will 
collect it by their own bayonets ; and they will not 
rigidly observe any air-lines or water-lines in enforcing 
their necessary levies, nor be staj-ed by abstract specu- 
lations concerning right, or learned constitutional diffi- 
culties. 

I desire, therefore, that it may be distinctly under- 
stood, both by this House and this nation, that it is my 
unequivocal belief that the invasion of Canada, which 
is avowed by the cabinet to be its purpose, is intended 
by it, — that continuance of the war and not peace is its 
project. Yes, sir, as the French Emperor said concern- 
ing ships and colonies, so our cabinet, the friends of the 
French Emperor, may say, with respect to Canada 
and Halifax, — " They enter into the scope of its 
policy." 

[Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Hall, of 
Georgia, for intimating that the members of the cabinet 
were friends of the French Emperor. 

Mr. Quincy said that he understood that the relations 
of amity did subsist between this country and France, 
and that in such a state of things he had a right to 
speak of the American cabinet as the friends of France, 
in the same manner as he had now a right to call them 
the enemies of Great Britain. 

The Speaker said that the relations of amity certainly 
did subsist between this country and France, and that 
he did not conceive the gentleman from Massachusetts 
to be out of order in his expressions ; that it was im- 
possible to prevent gentlemen from expressing them- 
selves so as to convey an innuendo.] 



366 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

• 

Mr. Quincy proceeded : If, Mr. Speaker, the gentle- 
man from Georgia and his political friends would take 
one thing into consideration, he and they will have no 
reason to complain in case the cabinet be of that im- 
maculate nature he supposes. No administration, no 
man, was ever materially injured by any mere " innu- 
endo." The strength of satire is the justness of the 
remark, and the only sting of invective is the truth of 
the observation. 

I will now proceed to discuss those topics which 
naturally arise out of the bill under consideration and 
examine the proposed invasion of Canada at three dif- 
ferent points of view. 

1. As a means of carrjdng on the existing war. 

2. As a means of obtaining an early and honorable 
peace. 

3. As a means of advancing the personal and local 
projects of ambition of the members of the American 
cabinet. 

Concerning the invasion of Canada as a means of 
carrying on the subsisting war, it is my duty to speak 
plainly and decidedly, not only because I herein express 
my own opinions upon the subject, but, as I conscien- 
tiously believe, the sentiments also of a very great 
majority of that whole section of country in which I 
have the happiness to reside. I saj-, then, sir, that I 
consider the invasion of Canada as a means of carrying 
on this war as cruel, wanton, senseless, and wicked. 

You will easily understand, Mr. Speaker, by this very 
statement of opinion, that I am not one of that class of 
politicians which has for so many years predominated in 
the world, on both sides of the Atlantic. You will 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 367 

readily believe that I am not one of those who worship 
in that temple where Condorcet is the high priest, and 
Machiavel the God. With such politicians the end 
always sanctifies the means ; the least possible good to 
themselves perfectly justifies, according to their creed, 
the inflicting the greatest possible evil U]3on others. In 
the judgment of such men, if a corrupt ministry, at 
three thousand miles distance, shall have done them an 
injury, it is an ample cause to visit witli desolation a 
peaceable and unoffending race of men, their neigh- 
bors, who happen to be associated with that ministry by 
ties of mere political dependence. What though these 
colonies be so remote from the sphere of the questions 
in controversy that their ruin or prosperity could have 
no possible influence upon the result ? What though 
their cities offer no plunder? What though their con- 
quest can yield no glory ? In their ruin there is revenge ; 
and revenge to such politicians is tlie sweetest of all 
morsels. With such men neither I, nor the people 
of that section of country in which I reside, hold any 
communion. There is, between us and them, no one 
principle of sympathy, either in motive or action. 

That wise, moral, reflecting people which constitute 
the great mass of the population of Massachusetts, 
indeed of all New England, look for the sources of their 
political duties nowhere else than in those fountains 
from which spring their moral duties. According to 
their estimate of human life and its obligations, both 
political and moral duties emanate from the nature of 
things, and from the essential and eternal relations 
which subsist among them. True it is that a state of 
war gives the right to seize and appropriate the property 



368 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

and territories of an enemy. True it is that the colonies 
of a foreign power are viewed, according to the law of 
nations, in the light of its property. But in estimating 
the propriety of carrying desolation into the peaceful 
abodes of their neighbors, the people of New England 
will not limit their contemplation to the mere circum- 
stance of abstract right, nor ask what lawyers and juris- 
prudists have written or said, as if this was conclusive 
upon the subject. That people are much addicted to 
think for themselves, and, in canvassing the propriety of 
such an invasion, they will consider the actual condition 
of those colonies, their natural relations to us, and the 
effect which their conquest and ruin will have, not only 
upon the people of those colonies, but upon themselves, 
and their own liberties and constitution. And, above 
alb what I know will seem strange to some of those who 
hear me, they will not forget to apply to a case occur- 
ring between nations, as far as is practicable, that heaven- 
descended rule which the great Author and Founder 
of their religion has given them for the regulation of 
their conduct towards each other. They will consider 
it the duty of these United States to act towards those 
colonies as they would wish those colonies to act in 
exchange of circumstances towards these United States. 
The actual condition of those colonies, and the rela- 
tion in which they stood to the United States antecedent 
to the declaration of war, were of this nature. Those 
colonies had no connection with the questions in dispute 
between us and their parent state. They had done us 
no injury. They meditated none to us. Between the 
inhabitants of those colonies and the citizens of the 
United States the most friendly and mutually useful 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 369 

intercourse subsisted. The borderers on this and those 
on the other side of the St. Lawrence and of the 
boundary line scarcely realized that they were subjects 
of different governments. They interchanged expres- 
sions and acts of civility. Intermarriages took place 
among them. The Canadians sometimes settled in the 
United States. Sometimes our citizens emigrated to 
Canada. After the declaration of war, had they any 
disposition to assail us ? ^^^e have the reverse expressly 
in evidence. They desired nothing so much as to keep 
perfect the then subsisting relations of amity. Would 
the conquest of those colonies shake the policy of the 
British Cabinet? No man has shown it. Unqualified 
assertions, it is true, have been made, but totally un- 
supported by any evidence or even the pretence of 
argument. On the contrary, nothing was more obvious 
than that an invasion of Canada must strengthen the 
ministry of Great Britain by the excitement and sym- 
pathy which would be occasioned in the people of that 
country, in consequence of the sufferings of the innocent 
inhabitants of those colonies on account of a dispute in 
which they had no concern and of which they had 
scarcely a knowledge. All this was anticipated. All this 
was frequently urged to this House, at the last and pre- 
ceding sessions, as the necessary effect of such a meas- 
ure. The event has justified those predictions. The late 
elections in Great Britain have terminated in the com- 
plete triumph of the friends of the British ministry. In 
effecting this change, the conduct of these United States 
in relation to Canada has had undeniably a mighty 
influence by the disgust and indignation felt by the 
British people at a step so apparently wanton and cruel. 

24 



370 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

As there was no direct advantage to be hoped from 
the conquest of Canada, so also there was none inci- 
dental. Plunder thei-e was none ; at least none which 
would pay the cost of the conquest. Glory there was 
none. Could seven millions of people obtain glory by 
precipitating themselves upon half a million and tram- 
pling them into the dust? a giant obtain glory by 
crushing a pigmy ! That giant must have a pigmy's 
spirit who could reap or hope glory from such an 
achievement. 

Surely a people with whom we were connected by so 
many natural and adventitious ties had some claims 
upon our humanity. Surely, if our duty required that 
they and theirs should be sacrificed to our interests or 
our passions, some regret mingled in the execution of 
the purpose. We postponed the decree of ruin until 
the last moment. We hesitated, we delayed, until longer 
delay was dangerous. Alas, sir ! there was nothing of 
this kind or character in the conduct of the cabinet. 
The war had not yet been declared when General Hull 
had his instructions to put in train the work of destruc- 
tion. There was an eagerness for the blood of the 
Canadians, a headlong precipitation for their ruin, 
which indicated any thing else rather than feelings of 
humanity or visitings of nature on account of their con- 
dition. Our armies were on their march for their fron- 
tier, while yet peace existed between this country and 
the parent State ; and the invasion ^^'as obstinately pur- 
sued after a knowledge that the chief ground of contro- 
versy was settled by the abandonment of the British 
Orders in Council, and after nothing remained but a stale 
ground of dispute, which, however important in itself, 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 371 

was of a nature for which no man has ever 3'et pretended 
that for it alone war would have been declared. Did 
ever one government exhibit towards any people a more 
bloody and relentless spirit of rancor ? Tell not me of 
petty advantages, of remote and possibly useful contin- 
gencies, which might arise from the devastation of those 
colonies. Show any advantage which justifies that 
dreadful vial of wrath, which, if the intention of the 
American cabinet had been fulfilled, would at this day 
have been poured out upon the heads of the Canadians. 
It is not owing to the tender mercies of the American 
administration if the bones of the Canadians are not at 
this hour mingled with the ashes of their habitations. 
It is easy enough to make an excuse for any purpose. 
When a victim is destined to be immolated, every hedge 
presents sticks for the sacrifice. The lamb who stands 
at the mouth of the stream will always trouble the 
water, if j-ou take the account of the wolf who stands 
at the source of it. But show a good to us bearing 
any proportion to the multiplied evils proposed to be 
visited upon them. There is none. Never was there 
an invasion of any country worse than this, in 23oint of 
moral principle, since the invasion of the West Indies 
by the buccaneers, or that of these United States by 
Captain Kidd. Indeed, both Kidd and the buccaneers 
had more apology for their deed than the American 
cabinet. They had at least the hope of plunder. But 
in this case there is not even the poor refuge of cupidity. 
We have heard great lamentations about the disgrace of 
our arms on the frontier. Why, sir, the disgrace of our 
arms on the frontier is terrestrial glory in comparison 
with the disgrace of the attempt. The whole atmos- 



372 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

phere rings with tlie utterance, from the other side of 
the House, of this word, " Glory, glory," in connection 
with this invasion. What glory ? Is it the glory of the 
tiger, which lifts his jaws, all foul and bloody, from, the 
bowels of his victim, and roars for his companions of 
the wood to come and witness his prowess and his 
spoils ? Such is the glory of Genghis Khan and of 
Bonaparte. Be such glory far, very far, from my coun- 
try. Never, never may it be accursed with such fame. 

" Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil, 
Nor in tlie glistering foil 
Set ofl" to the world, nor in broad rumor lies ; 
But lives and spreads alolt by those pure eyes 
And perfect witness of all-judging Jove, 
As he pronounces lastly on each deed." 

May such fame as this be my country's meed ! 

But the wise and thoughtful people of our northern 
section will not confine their reflections to the duties 
which result from the actual condition of those colonies 
and their general relations to the United States. They 
will weigh the duties the people of the United States 
owe to themselves, and contemplate the effect which the 
subjugation of those Canadians will have upon our own 
liberties and Constitution. Sir, it requires but little 
experience in the nature of the human character, and 
but a very limited acquaintance with the history of 
man, to be satisfied that with the conquest of the 
Canadas the liberties and Constitution of this country 
perish. 

Of all nations in the world this nation is the last 
which ought to admit among its purposes the design of 
foreign conquests. States such as are these, connected 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 373 

by ties so peculiar, into whose combination there enters 
necessarily numerous jealousies* and fears, whose inter- 
ests are not always reconcilable, and the passions, edu- 
cation, and character of whose people on many accounts 
are repugnant to each qther, with a Constitution made 
merely for defence, it is impossible that an association 
of independent sovereignties, standing in such relations 
to each other, should not have the principles of its Union 
and the hopes of its Constitution materially affected by 
the collection of a large military force, and its employ- 
ment in the subjugation of neighboring territories. It 
is easy to see that an army collected in such a state of 
society as that which exists in this country, where wages 
are high and subsistence easily to be obtained, must be 
composed, so far as resj)ects the soldiery, for the most 
part of the refuse of the country ; and, as it respects 
the officers, — with some honorable exceptions, indeed, — 
must consist in a considerable degree of men desperate 
sometimes in fortune, at others in reputation, " choice 
spirits," men " tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," 
who have not virtue or talents to rise in a calm and set- 
tled state of things, and who, all other means of advance- 
ment or support wanting or failing, take to the sword. 
A l)ody of thirty or fifty thousand such men combined, 
armed and under a popular leader, is a very formidable 
force. They want only discipline and service to make 
them veterans. Opportunity to acquire these Canada 
will afford. The army which advances to the walls of 
Quebec, in the present condition of Canadian prepara- 
tion, must be veteran. And a veteran army under a 
popular leader, flushed with victory, each individual 
realizing that while the body remains combined he may 



374 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

be something, and possibly veiy great, that if dissolved 
he sinks into insignificance, will not be disbanded b}* vote. 
They will consult with one another, and with their 
beloved chieftain upon this subject, and not trouble 
themselves about the advice of the old people who are 
knitting and weaving in the chimney-corners at Wash- 
ington. Let the American people receive this as an 
undoubted truth which experience will verify : M'ho- 
ever plants the American standard on the walls of Que- 
bec conquers it for himself, and not for the peo})le of 
these United States. Whoever lives to see that event 
— may my head be low in the dust before it happen ! — 
will witness a dynasty established in that country by 
the sword. He will see a king or an emperor, duke- 
doms and earldoms and baronies distributed to the 
officers, and knights' fees bestowed on the soldiery. 
And such an army will not trouble itself about geo- 
graphical lines in portioning out the divisions of its new 
empire, and will run the parallels of its power by other 
steel than that of the com^jass. When that event hap- 
pens, the people of New England, if they mean to be 
free, must have a force equal to defend themselves 
against such an arm3\ And a military force equal to 
this object will itself be able to enslave the countr3^ 

Mr. Speaker, when I contemplate the character and 
consequences of this invasion of Canada, when I reflect 
upon its criminality and its danger to the peace and lib- 
erty of this once hapj)y country, I thank the great 
Author and Source of all virtue that, through his grace, 
that section of country in which I have the happiness to 
reside is in so great a degree free from the iniquity of 
this transgression. I speak it with pride : the peoj)le of 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 375 

that section have done what they could to vindicate 
themselves and their children from the burden of this 
sin. That whole section has risen, almost as one man, 
for the purpose of driving from power by one great con- 
stitutional effort the guilty authors of this war. If they 
have failed, it has been, not through the want of will or 
of exertion, but in consequence of the weakness of their 
political power. When in the usual course of divine 
providence, who punishes nations as well as individuals, 
his destroying angel shall on this account pass over this 
country, — and, sooner or later, pass it will, — I may be 
permitted to hope that over New England his hand will 
be stayed. Our souls are not steeped in the blood 
which has been shed in this war. The spirits of the 
unhapp}^ men who have been sent to an untimely audit 
have borne to the bar of divine justice no accusations 
against us. 

This opinion concerning the principle of this invasion 
of Canada is not peculiar to me. Multitudes who 
approve the war detest it. I believe this sentiment is 
entertained, without distinction of parties, by almost all 
the moral sense and nine-tenths of the intelligence of 
the whole northern section of the United States. I 
know that men from that quarter of the country Avill 
tell you differently. Stories of a very different kind are 
brought by all those who come trooping to Washington 
for place, appointments, and emoluments ; men who will 
say any thing to please the ear, or do any thing to please 
the eye, of Majesty, for the sake of those fat contracts 
and gifts which it scatters ; men whose fathers, brothers, 
and cousins are provided for by the departments ; whose 
full-grown children are at suck at the money-distilling 



376 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

breasts of the Treasury ; the little men who sigh after 
great offices ; those who have judgeships in hand or 
judgeships in promise ; toads that live upon the vapor 
of the palace ; that stare and wonder at all the fine 
sights which they see there, and most of all wonder at 
themselves, — how they got there to see them. These 
men will tell you that New England applauds this 
invasion. 

But, Mr. Speaker, look at the elections. What is the 
language they speak ? The present tenant of the chief 
magistracy rejected by that whole section of country, 
with the exce]3tion of a single State, unanimously. 
And for whom ? In favor of a man, out of the circle of 
his own State, without much influence and personally 
almost unknowii : in favor of a man against whom the 
prevailing influences in New England had previously 
strong political prejudices ; and with whom, at the time 
of giving him their support, they had no political under- 
standing : in favor of a man whose merits, whatever in 
other respects they might be, were brought into notice 
in the first instance, chiefly, so far as that election was 
concerned, by their opinion of the utter want of merit 
of the man whose re-election the}^ opposed. 

Among the causes of that universal disgust which 
j^ervaded all New England at the administration and its 
supporters was the general dislike and contempt of this 
invasion of Canada. I have taken some pains to learn 
the sentiments which prevail on this subject in New 
England, and particularly among its yeomanry, the 
pride and the hope of that country. I have conversed 
with men, resting on their spades and leaning on the 
handles of their ploughs, while they relaxed for a 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 377 

moment from the labor by Avhich they support their 
families, and Avhich gives such a hardihood and charac- 
ter to their virtnes. The}' asked, " What do we want 
of Canada ? We have land enough. Do we want 
plunder ? There is not enough of that to pay the cost 
of getting it. Are our ocean rights there ? or is it there 
our seamen are held in captivity? Are new States 
desired ? We have plenty of those already ? Are they 
to be held as conquered territories ? This will require 
an army there : then, to be safe, we must have an army 
here ; and, with a standing army, what security for our 
liberties?" 

These are no fictitious reasonings. They are the 
suggestions, I doubt not, of thousands and tens of thou- 
sands of our hardy New England yeomanry, — men 
who when their country calls, at any wise and real exi- 
gency, will start from their native soils and throw their 
shields over their liberties, like the soldiers of Cadmus, 
" armed in complete steel ; " yet men who have heard 
the winding of your horn to the Canada campaign with 
the same apathy and indifference with which they would 
hear in the streets the trilling of a jews-harp or the 
tinkling of a banjo. 

The plain truth is, that the people of New England 
have no desire for Canada. Their moral sentiment 
does not justify, and they will not countenance, its in- 
vasion. I have thus stated the grounds on which they 
deem, and I have felt myself bound to maintain, that 
this contemplated invasion of that territory is, as it 
respects the Canadians, wanton and cruel ; because it 
inflicts the greatest imaginable evils on them without 
any imaginable benefit to us ; that, as it respects the 



378 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

United States, such an invasion is senseless, because 
ultimately ruinous to our own political safety ; and 
wicked, because it is an abuse of the blessings of Divine 
Providence, and a manifest perversion of his multiplied 
bounties to the purpose of desolating an innocent and 
unoffending people. 

I shall now proceed to the next view I proposed to 
take of this project of invading Canada, and consider it 
in the light of a means to obtain an early and honorable 
peace. It is said, and this is the whole argument in 
favor of this invasion in this aspect, that the only way 
to negotiate successfully with Great Britain is to appeal 
to her fears, and raise her terrors for the fate of her 
colonies. I shall here say nothing concerning the diffi- 
culties of executing this scheme, nor about the possi- 
bility of a deficiency both in men and money. I will 
not dwell on the disgust of all New England, nor on 
the influence of this disgust with respect to your efforts. 
I will admit for the present that an army may be raised, 
and that during the first years it may be supported by 
loans, and that afterwards it will support itself by 
bayonets. I Avill admit farther, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that success is possible, and that Great Britain 
realizes the practicability of it. Now, all this being 
admitted, I maintain that the surest of all possible ways 
to defeat any hope from negotiation is the threat of 
such an invasion, and an active preparation to execute 
it. Those must be very young politicians — their pin- 
feathers not yet grown, and, however they may flutter 
on this floor, they are not yet fledged for any high or 
distant flight — who think that threats and appealing 
to fear are the ways of producing a disposition to nego- 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 379 

tiate in Great Britain, or in any other nation Avliieh under- 
stands what it owes to its own safety and honor. Xo 
nation can yield to threat what it might ^''ield to a sense 
of interest ; because, in that case, it has no credit for what 
it grants, and, what is more, loses something in point of 
reputation from the imbecility which concessions made 
under such circumstances indicate. Of all nations in 
the world. Great Britain is the last to yield to consider- 
ations of fear and terror. The whole history of the 
British nation is one tissue of facts tending to show the 
spirit with which she meets all attempts to bull}^ and 
browbeat her into measures inconsistent with her inter- 
ests or her policy. No nation ever before made such 
sacrifices of the present to the future. No nation ever 
built her greatness more systematically on the principle 
of a haughty self-respect, which yields nothing to sug- 
gestions of danger, and which never permits either her 
ability or inclination to maintain her rights to be sus- 
pected. In all negotiations, therefore, with that power, 
it may be taken as a certain truth that your chance of 
failure is just in proportion to the publicity and obtru- 
siveness of threats and appeals to fear. 

The American cabinet understand all this very well, 
although this House may not. Their policy is founded 
uj)on it. The project of this bill is to put at a still 
further distance the chance of amicable arrangement, in 
consequence of the dispositions which the threat of 
invasion of their colonies and attempt to execute it will 
excite in the British nation and ministry. I have some 
claim to speak concerning the policy of the men who 
constitute the American cal)inet. For eight years I 
have studied their history, characters, and interests. I 



380 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

know no reasons why I should judge them severely, 
except such as arise from those inevitable conclusions 
which avowed principles and distinct conduct have 
impressed uj)on the mind. I say then, sir, without 
hesitation, that in my judgment the embarrassment of 
our relations with Great Britain, and keeping alive 
between this country and that a root of bitterness, has 
been, is, and will continue to be, a main principle of the 
policy of this American cabinet. They want not a 
solid settlement of our differences. If the nation will 
support them in it, they will persevere in the present 
war. If it will not, some general arrangements will be 
the resort, which will leave open opportunities for dis- 
cord, which, on proper occasions, will be improved by 
them. I sha,ll give my reasons for this opinion. I wish 
no sentiments of mine to have influence any farther 
than the reasons upon which they are founded justify. 
They are public reasons, arising from undeniable facts : 
the nation will judge for itself. 

The men who now, and who for these twelve years 
past have, to the misfortune of this country, guided its 
councils and directed its destinies, came into power on 
a tide which was raised and supported by elements con- 
stituted of British prejudices and British antipathies. 
The parties which grew up in this nation took their 
origin and form at the time of the adoption of the 
treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay in 1794. The opposition 
of that day, of which the men now in power were the 
leaders, availed themselves very dexterously of the 
relics of that hatred towards the British name which 
remained after the revolutionary war. By perpetually 
blowing upon the embers of the ancient passions they 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 381 

excited a flame in the nation ; and, by systematically 
directing it against the honorable men who at that time 
conducted its affairs, the strength and influence of 
those men were impaired. The embarrassments with 
France, which succeeded in 1798 and 1799, were turned 
to the same account. Unfortunately those who then 
conducted public affairs attended less to the appearances 
of things than to tlieir natures, and considered more 
what was due to their country than was prudent in the 
state of the prejudices and jealousies of the people, 
thus artfully excited against them. They went on in 
the course they deemed right, regardless of personal 
consequences, and blind to the evidences of discontent 
which surrounded them. The consequences are well 
known. The supreme power in these United States 
passed into the hands which now possess it, in which it 
has been continued down to the present time. This 
transfer of power was effected undeniably princijjally on 
the very ground of these prejudices and antipathies 
which existed in the nation against Great Britain, and 
which had been artfully fomented by the men now in 
power and their adherents, and directed against their 
predecessors. These jDrejudices and passions constitute 
the main pillar of the power of these men. In my 
opinion they never will permit it to be wholly taken 
away from them. They never will permit the people 
of this country to look at them and their political 
opponents free of that jaundice with which they have 
carefully imbued the vision of their own partisans. 
They never will consent to be weighed in a balance of 
mere merits, but will always take care to keep in reserve 
some portion of these British antipathies to throw as a 



382 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

make-weight into the opposite scale whenever they find 
their own sinking. To continue, multiply, strengthen, 
and extend these props of their power has been and 
still is the object of the daily- study and the nightly 
vigils of our American cabinet. For this the British 
treaty was permitted to expire by its own limitation ; 
notwithstanding the state of things which the treaty of 
Amiens had produced in Europe was so little like per- 
manent peace that the occurrence of the fact on which 
the force of that limitation depended might easily have 
been questioned with but little violence to the terms 
and in perfect conformity with its spirit ; for this a 
renewal of the treaty of 1794 was refused by our 
cabinet, although proffered by the British government : 
for this the treaty of 1807, negotiated by Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinkney, was rejected; for this, in 1811, 
fifty thousand dollars were paid out of the public 
Treasury to John Henry for the obvious purpose of 
enabling the American cabinet to calumniate their 
political opponents on this very point of British influ- 
ence upon the eve of elections occurring in Massachu- 
setts, on the event of which the i^erpetuation of their 
own power was materially dependent. Mr. Speaker, 
such men as these never will permit a state of things to 
pass away so essential to their influence. Be it peace 
or war, arrangement or hostility, the association of these 
British antipathies in the minds of the mass of the com- 
munity with the characters of their political opponents 
constitutes the great magazine of their power. This 
composes their whole political larder. It is, like Lord 
Peter's brown loaf, their "beef, mutton, veal, venison, 
partridge, plum-pudding, and custard." 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 383 

From the time of the expiration of the British treaty 
of 1794, and the refusal to renew it, the American cab- 
inet have been careful to precede negotiation with some 
circumstance or other calculated to make it fail, or at 
least to make a successful result less certain. Thus, in 
1806, when, from the plunder of our commerce by Brit- 
ish cruisers, a negotiation, notwithstanding the obvious 
reluctance of the cabinet, was forced upon them by the 
clamors of the merchants, the non-importation laAV of 
April in that year was obtruded between the two coun- 
tries. In the course of the debate upon that law, it 
was opposed upon this very ground, that it was an ob- 
stacle to a successful negotiation. It was advocated, 
like the bill now under discussion, as an aid to success- 
ful negotiation. It was also said, by the opponents of 
that law of 1806, that Great Britain would not nego- 
tiate under its operation, and that arrangement, at- 
tempted under proper auspices, could not be difficult, 
from the known interests and inclinations of that nation. 
What was the consequence ? Precisely that which Avas 
anticipated. The then President of the United States 
was necessitated to come to this House and recommend 
a suspension of the operation of that law, upon the 
openly avowed ground of its being expedient to give 
that evidence of a conciliatory disposition, really be- 
cause, if permitted to continue in operation, negotiation 
was found to be impracticable. After the suspension 
of that law a treaty was formed. The merits of that 
treaty it is not within the scope of my present argument 
to discuss. It is sufficient to say it was deemed good 
enough to receive the sanction of jNlessrs. Monroe and 
Pinkney. It arrived in America, and was rejected by 



384 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

the authority of a single individual,' apparently because 
of the insufficiency of the arrangement about impress- 
ment, really because a settlement with Great Britain at 
that time did not " enter into the scope of the policy " 
of the American cabinet. The negotiation was, indeed, 
renewed ; but it was followed up with the enforcement 
of the non-importation law and the enactment of the 
embargo ; both which steps were stated at the time, as 
they proved afterwards, to be of a nature to make hope- 
less successful negotiation. 

In this state, the executive power of this nation for- 
mally passed into new hands, but substantially remained 
under the old principles of action and subject to the 
former influences. It was desirable that a fund of pop- 
ularity should be acquired for the new administration. 
Accordingly an arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, 
and no questions asked concerning the adequacy of his 
powers. But, lest this circumstance should not defeat 
the proposed arrangement, a clause was inserted in the 
correspondence, containing an insult to the British gov- 
ernment, oifered in the face of the world, such as no 
man ever gave to a private individual whom he did not 
mean to offend. The President of the United States 
said in so many words to the person at the head of 
that government that he did not understand what be- 
longed to his own honor as well as it was understood 
by the President himself. The effect of such language 
was natural ; it was necessary ; it could not but render the 
British government averse to sanction Erskine's arrange- 
ment. The effect was anticipated by Mr. Robert Smith, 

1 President Jefferson, wlio rejected the treaty, witliout submitting it to 
the Senate, as he was constitutionally bound to do, or even consulting liis 
own cabinet. 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 385 

then acting as Secretaiy of State. He objected to its 
being inserted ; but it was done in the President's own 
handwriting. As ]\Ir. Erskine's authority was denied 
by the British government, it is well known that in fact 
on the point of this indignity the fate of that arrangement 
turned. Can any one doubt that our cabinet meant 
that it should have this effect ? I send 30U woixl, Mr. 
Speaker, " that I have agreed with your messenger, and 
wish you to ratify it. I think you, however, no gentle- 
man notwithstanding, and that you do not understand 
as well as I what is due to 3^our own honor." What 
think you, sir ? Would you ratify such an arrangement 
if you could help it ? Does a proffer of settlement, con- 
nected with such language, look like a disposition or an 
intention to conciliate ? I appeal to the common-sense 
of mankind on the point. 

The whole state of the relations induced between this 
country and Great Britain, in consequence of our em- 
bargo and restrictive systems, was in fact a standing 
appeal to the fears of the British Cabinet ; for, notwith- 
standing those systems were equal in their terms so far 
as they affected foreign powers, yet their operation was 
notoriously almost wholly upon Great Britain. To yield 
to that pressure, or do any thing which should foster in 
this country the idea that it was an effectual weapon of 
hostility, was nothing more than conceding that she was 
dependent upon us, — a concession which when once 
made by her was certain to encourage a resort to it by 
us on every occasion of difficulty between the two na- 
tions. Reasoning, therefore, upon the known nature of 
things, and the plain interests of Great Britain, it was 
foretold that during its continuance she would concede 

25 



386 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

nothing, and the event has justified those predictions. 
But the circumstance the most striking, and that fur- 
nishing the most conclusive evidence of the indisposition 
of the American cabinet to peace and their determina- 
tion to carry on the war, is that connected with the 
pretended repeal of the French decrees in November, 
1810, and the consequent revival, in 1811, of our re- 
strictive system against Great Britain. 

If ever a body of men were pledged to any thing, 
the American cabinet, its friends and supporters, were 
pledged for tlie truth of this fact, that the French 
decrees of Berlin and Milan were definitively repealed, 
as it respects the United States, on the 1st of Novem- 
ber, 1810. If ever any body of men staked their whole 
stock of recantation upon any point, our cabinet did it 
on this. They and their partisans asserted and raved. 
They denounced every man as a British partisan who 
denied it. They declared the restrictive system was 
revived by the mere effect of the proclamation. But, 
lest the courts of law should not be as subservient to 
their policy as might be wished, they passed the law of 
the 2d March, 1811, upon the basis of this repeal, and 
of its being definitive. The British government refused, 
however, to recognize the validity of this repeal, and 
denied that the Berlin and Milan decrees were repealed 
on the 1st November, 1810, as our cabinet asserted. 
Thus, then, stood the argument between the British 
ministry and our cabinet. The British ministry admitted 
that, if the Berlin and Milan decrees were repealed on 
the 1st November, 1810, they Avere bound to revoke 
their Orders in Council. But they denied that repeal 
to exist. Our cabinet, on the other hand, admitted 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 387 

that, if the Berlin and Milan decrees were not repealed 
on the 1st November, 1810, the restrictive system ought 
not to have been revived against Great Britain. But 
they asserted that repeal to exist. This was virtually 
the state of the question between the two countries on 
this point. And it is agreed, on all hands, that this 
refusal of the British government to repeal their Orders 
in Council, after the existence of the repeal of the 
Berlin and Milan decrees, as asserted by tlie American 
cabinet, was the cause of the declaration of war between 
the two countries. So that, in truth, the question of 
the right of war depended upon the existence of that 
fact; for if that fact did not exist, even the American 
cabinet did not pretend that, in the position in which 
things then stood, they had a right to declare war on 
account of the continuance of the British Orders in 
Council. 

Now, what is the truth, in relation to this all-impor- 
tant fact, the definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan 
decrees on the 1st November, 1810, — the pivot u23on 
which turned the revival of the restrictive system and 
our declaration of war ? Why, sir, the event has proved 
that, in relation to that fact, the American cabinet was, 
to say the least, in an error. Bonaparte himself, in a 
decree dated the 28th of April, 1811, but not promul- 
gated till a year afterwards, distinctly declares that the 
Berlin and Milan decrees were not definitively repealed, 
as relates to the United States, on the 1st November, 
1810. He also declares that they are then, on that 
28th of April, for the first time repealed. And he 
founds the issuing of this decree on the act of the 
American Congress of the 2d of March, 1811, — that 



388 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

very act which was passed upon the ground of the 
definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees on the 
,1st November, 1810 ; and which, it is agreed on all 
sides, the American government were bound in honor 
not to pass, except in case of such antecedent repeal ! !- 

Were ever a body of men so abandoned in the hour 
of need as the American cabinet, in this instance, by 
Bonaparte ? Was ever any body of men so cruelly 
wounded in the -house of their friend? This — this 
was " the unkindest cut of all." But how was it re- 
ceived by the American cabinet ? Surely, they were 
indignant at this treatment. Surely, the air rings with 
reproaches upon a man who has thus made them stake 
their reputation upon a falseliood, and then gives little 
less than the lie direct to their assertions. No, sir, 
nothing of all this is heard from our cabinet. There is 
a philosophic tameness that would be remarkable if it 
were not in all cases affecting Bonaparte characteristic. 
All the executive of the United States has found it in 
his heart to say in relation to this last decree of Bona- 
parte, which contradicts Ins previous allegations and 
asseverations, is that " this proceeding is rendered, 
by the time and manner of it, liable to many objec- 
tions " 1 ! ! 

I have referred to this subject as being, connected 
with future conduct, strikingly illustrative of the dispo- 
sition of the American cabinet to carry on the war, and 
of their intention, if possible, not to make peace. 
Surely, if any nation had a claim for liberal treatment 
from another, it was the British nation from the Amer- 
ican, after the discovery of the error of the American 
government in relation to the repeal of the Berlin and 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 389 

Milan decrees in November, 1810. In consequence of 
that error, the American cabinet had ruined numbers 
of our own citizens who had been caught by the revival 
of the non-intercourse law : they had revived that law 
against Great Britain under circumstances which now 
appeared to have been fallacious ; and they had declared 
w^ar against her on the supposition that she had refused 
to repeal her Orders in Council, after the French 
decrees were in fact revoked ; whereas, it now appears 
that they were in fact not revoked. Surely the knowl- 
edge of this error was followed by an instant and anxious 
desire to redress the resulting injury. As the British 
Orders in Council were in fact revoked, on the knowl- 
edge of the existence of the French decree of repeal, 
surely the American cabinet at once extended the hand 
of friendship, met the British government half way, 
stopped all further irritation, and strove to place every 
thing on a basis best suited to promote an amicable 
adjustment. No, sir, nothing of all this occurred. On 
the contrary, the question of ira^iressments is made the 
basis of continuing the war. On this subject, a studied 
fairness of proposition is preserved, accompanied with 
S3'stematic perseverance in measures of hostility. An 
armistice was proposed by them. It was refused hy us. 
It was acceded to by the American general on the 
frontiers. It was rejected by the cabinet. No consid- 
eration of the false allegation on which the war in fact 
was founded, no consideration of the critical and ex- 
tremely essential nature to both nations of the sub- 
ject of impressment, no considerations of humanity, 
interposed their influence. They renewed hostilities. 
They rushed upon Canada. Nothing would satisfy them 



390 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 



but blood. The language of their conduct is that of the 
giant, in the legends of infancy, — 



Fee, Faw, Fum, 

I smell the blood of an Englishman, 

Dead or alive, I will have some. 

Can such men pretend that peace is their object ? 
Whatever may result, the perfect conviction of my mind 
is that they have no such intention, and that, if it come, 
it is contrary both to their hope and expectation. 

I would not judge these men severely. But it is my 
duty to endeavor to judge them truly, and to express 
fearlessl}^ the result of that judgment, whatever it may 
be. My opinion results from the application of the well- 
known j)i'inciple of judging concerning men's j)urposes 
and motives, — to consider rather what men do than what 
they say ; and to examine their deeds in connection with 
predominating passions and interests, and on this basis 
decide. In making an estimate of the intentions of 
these or any other politicians, I make little or no ac- 
count of pacific pretensions. There is a general reluc- 
tance at war and desire of peace which jDcrvades the 
great mass of ever}^ people ; and artful rulers could 
never keep any nation at war, any length of time 
beyond their true interests, without some sacrifice to 
that general love of peace which exists in civilized men. 
Bonaparte himself \vi\\ tell you that he is the most pa- 
cific creature in the world. He has already declared, by 
his proclamation to Frenchmen, that he has gone to 
Moscow for no other end than to cultivate peace and 
counteract the Emperor of Russia's desire of war. In 
this country, where the popular sentiment has so strong 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 391 

an impulse on its affairs, the same obtrusive pretension 
must inevitably be preserved. No man, or set of men, 
ever can or will get this country at war, or continue it 
long in war, without keeping on hand a stout, round 
stock of gulling matter. Fair propositions will always 
be made to go hand in hand with offensive acts. And 
when something is offered so reasonable that no man 
can doubt but it will be accepted, at the same moment 
something will be done of a nature to embarrass the 
project, and if not to defeat at least to render its accept- 
ance dubious. How this has been in past time I have 
shown. I Avill now illustrate what is doing and intended 
at present. 

As, from the uniform tenor of the conduct of the 
American cabinet in relation to the British government, 
I have no belief that their intention has been to make a 
solid arrangement with that nation, so, from the evi- 
dence of their disposition and intention existing abroad 
and on the table, I have no belief that such is at present 
their purpose. I cannot j)Ossibly think otherwise than 
that such is not their intention. Let us take the case 
into common life. I have demands, Mr. Speaker, 
against you, very just in their nature, but different. 
Some of recent, others of very old, date. The former 
depending upon principles very clearly in my favor ; 
the latter critical, difficult, and dubious, both in prin- 
ciple and settlement. In this state of things, and dur- 
ing 3'our absence, I watch my opportunity, declare 
enmity ; throw myself upon your children and servants 
and property which happen to be in my neighborhood, 
and do them all the injury I can. While I am doing 
this, I receive a messenger from you, stating that the 



392 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

grounds of the recent injury are settled, that you com- 
ply fully with my terms. Your servants and children, 
whom I am plundering and killing, invite me to stay 
my hand until you return, or until some accommodation 
can take place between us. But, deaf to any such 
suggestions, I prosecute my intention of injury to the 
utmost. When there is reason to expect your return, I 
multiply my means of injury and offence. And no 
sooner do I hear of your arrival than I thrust my fist 
into your face, and say to you, " Well, sir, hei-e are fair 
propositions of settlement. Come to my terms, which 
are very just. Settle the old demand in my vva}', and 
we will be as good friends as ever." Mr. Speaker, what 
would be 3'our conduct on such an occasion ? Would 
you be apt to look as much at the nature of the propo- 
sitions as at the temper of the assailant ? If you did not 
at once return blow for blow and injury for injury, would 
you not at least take a little time to consider ? Would 
you not tell such an assailant that you were not to be 
bullied nor beaten into any concession ? If you settled 
at all, might you not consider it your duty in some way 
to make him feel the consequences of his strange intem- 
perance of passion ? For myself, I have no question how 
a man of spirit ought to act under such circumstances. 
I have as little, how a great nation, like Great Britain, 
will act. Now, I have no doubt, sir, that the American 
cabinet view this subject in the same light. They un- 
derstand well that — by the declaration of war, the 
invasion of Canada, the refusal of an armistice, and per- 
severance in hostilities, after the princii^al ground of 
war had been removed — they have wrought the minds 
of the British cabinet and people to a very high state of 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 393 

irritation. Now is the very moment to get np some 
grand scheme of pacification, such as may persuade the 
American people of the inveterate love of our cabinet 
for peace, and make them acquiescent in their perse- 
verance in hostilities. Accordingly, before the end of 
the session, a great tub will be thrown out to the whale. 
Probably, a little while before the spring elections, terms 
of very fair import will be proffered to Great Britain : 
such as, perhaps, six months ago, our cabinet would not 
have granted, had she solicited them on her knees ; such 
as, probably, in the opinion of the people of this country, 
Great Britain ought to accept ; such, perhaps, as, in any 
other state of things, she would have accepted : but 
such, as I fear, under the irritation produced by the 
strange course pursued by the American cabinet, that 
nation will not accept. Sir, I do not believe that our 
cabinet expect that they will be accepted. They think 
the present state of induced passion is sufficient to pre- 
vent arrangement. But, to make assurance doubly 
sure, to take a bond of fate that arrangement shall not 
happen, the}" prepare this bill, — a bill which proposes 
an augmentation of the army for the express purpose of 
conquering the Canadas, — a bill which — connected 
with the recent disposition evinced by our cabinet in 
relation to those provinces, and with the avowed intent 
of making their subjugation the means of peace through 
the fear to be inspired into Great Britain — is as offen- 
sive to the pride of that nation as can well be imagined ; 
and is, in my apprehension, as sure a guarantee of con- 
tinued war as could be given. On these grounds, my 
mind cannot force itself to any other conclusion than 
this, that the avowed object of this bill is the true one ; 



394 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

that the Canadas are to be invaded the next season ; 
that the war is to be protracted ; and that this is the 
real policy of the American cabinet. 

I will now reply to those invitations to " union " 
which have been so obtrusively urged upon us. If by 
this call to union is meant an union in a project for the 
invasion of Canada, or for the invasion of East Florida, 
or for the conquest of any foreign country whatever, 
either as a means of carrying on this war or for any 
other purpose, I answer distinctly, I will unite with no 
man, nor any body of men, for any such purposes. I 
think such projects criminal in the highest degree and 
ruinous to the prosperity of these States. But if by 
this invitation is meant union in preparation for defence, 
strictly so called ; union in fortifying our sea-board ; 
union in putting our cities into a state of safety ; union 
in raising such a military force as shall be sufficient, 
with the local militia in the hands of the constitutional 
leaders, the executives of the States, to give a rational 
degree of security against any invasion, sufficient to 
defend our frontiers, sufficient to awe into silence the 
Indian tribes within our territories ; union in creating 
such a maritime force as shall command the seas on the 
American coasts, and keep open the intercourse at least 
between the States, — if this is meant I have no hesita- 
tion ; union on such principles you shall have from me 
cordially and faithfully ; and this, too, sir, without any 
reference to the state of my opinion in relation to the 
justice or the necessity of this war ; because I well 
understand such to be the condition of man in a social 
compact that he must partake of the fate of the society 
to which he belongs, and must submit to the privations 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 395 

and sacrifices its defence requires, notwithstanding these 
may be the result of the vices or crimes of its immediate 
rulers. But there is a great difference between support- 
ing such rulers in plans of necessary self-defence, on 
Avhich the safety of our altars and firesides essentially 
depends, and supporting them in projects of foreign 
invasion, and encouraging them in schemes of conquest 
and ambition which are not only unjust in themselves, 
but dreadful in their consequences ; inasmuch as, let the 
particular project result as it ma}^ the general effect 
must be, according to human view, destructive to our 
own domestic liberties and Constitution. I speak as an 
individual, sir, for my single self ; did I support such 
projects as are avowed to be the objects of this bill, I 
should deem myself a traitor to my country. Were I 
even to aid them by loan or in any other way, I should 
consider myself a partaker in the guilt of the purpose. 
But when these projects of invasion shall be abandoned ; 
when men yield up schemes, which not onl}^ openly con- 
template the raising of a great military force, but also 
the concentrating them at one point and placing them 
in one hand ; schemes obviously ruinous to the fates of 
a free republic, as they comprehend the means by which 
such have ever heretofore been destroyed, — when, I say, 
such schemes shall be abandoned, and the wishes of the 
cabinet limited to mere defence, and frontier and mari- 
time protection, there will be no need of calls to union. 
For such objects there is not, there cannot be, but one 
heart and soul in this people. 

I know, Mr. Speaker, that while I utter these things 
a thousand tongues and a thousand pens are preparing 
without doors to overwhelm me, if possible, by their 



396 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

pestiferous gall. Already I hear in the air the sound 
of " traitor," " British agent," " British gold," and all 
those changes of vulgar calumny by which the imagina- 
tions of the mass of men are affected, and by which 
they are prevented from listening to what is true and 
receiving what is reasonable. 

Mr. Speaker, it well becomes any man standing in the 
presence of such a nation as this to speak of himself 
seldom ; and such a man as I am it becomes to speak of 
himself not at all, except, indeed, when the relations in 
which he stands to his country are little known, and 
when the assertion of those relations has some connec- 
tion and may have some influence on interests which it 
is peculiarly incumbent upon him to support. 

Under this sanction, I say, it is not for a man Avhose 
ancestors have been planted in this country now for 
almost two centuries ; it is not for a man who has a 
famil}^, and friends, and character, and children, and a 
deep stake in the soil ; it is not for a man who is self- 
conscious of being rooted in that soil, as deeply and as 
exclusively as the oak which shoots among its rocks : it 
is not for such a man to hesitate or swerve a hair's 
breadth from his country's purpose and true interests, 
because of the yelpings, the bowlings, and snarlings of 
that hungry pack wliich corrupt men keep directly or 
indirectly in pay, with the view of hunting down every 
man who dare develop their purposes, — a pack com- 
posed, it is true, of some native curs, but for the most 
part of hounds and spaniels of very recent importation, 
whose backs are seared by the lash, and whose necks 
are sore with the collars of their former masters. In 
fulfilling his duty, the lover of his country must often 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 397 

be obliged to breast the shock of calumny. If called to 
that service, he will meet the exigency with the same 
firmness as, should another occasion call, he would 
breast the shock of battle. No, sir, I am not to be 
deterred by such apprehensions. May heaven so deal 
with me and mine, as I am true or faithless to the best 
interests of this people ! May it deal with me accord- 
ing to its just judgments when I fail to bring men and 
measures to the bar of public opinion, and to expose 
projects and systems of policy which I know to be 
ruinous to the peace, prosperity, and liberties of my 
country ! 

This leads me naturally to the third and last point of 
view at which I proposed to consider this bill, — as a 
means for the advancement of the objects of the per- 
sonal or local ambition of the members of the American 
cabinet. With respect to the members of that cabinet, 
I ma}" almost literally say I know nothing of them 
except as public men. Against them I have no jDcr- 
sonal animosity. I know little of them in private life, 
and that little never made me ambitious to know more. 
I look at them as public men, wielding powers and put- 
ting in operation means and instruments materially 
affecting the interests and prospects of the United 
States. 

It is a curious fact, but no less true than curious, that 
for these twelve years past the whole affairs of this 
country have been managed, and its fortunes reversed, 
under the influence of a cabinet little less than despotic, 
composed, to all efficient purposes, of two Virginians 
and a foreigner. When I speak of these men as Vir- 
ginians, I mean to cast no odium upon that State, as 



398 SPEECH ox THE INVASION OF CANADA, 

though it were not entitled to its full share of influence 
in the national councils ; nor, when I referred to one of 
them as being a foreigner, do I intend thereby to sug- 
gest any connections of a nature unworthy or suspicious. 
I refer to these circumstances as general and undoubted 
facts which belong to the characters of the cabinet, and 
which cannot fail to be taken into view in all estimates 
of plans and projects, so long as man is constituted as 
he is, and so long as the prejudices and principles of 
childhood never fail to influence in different degrees in 
even the best men the course of thinking and action of 
their riper years. 

I might have said, perhaps, with more strict pro- 
priety, that it was a cabinet composed of three Virgin- 
ians and a foreigner,^ because once in the course of the 
twelve years there has been a change of one of the 
characters. But, sir, that change was notoriously mat- 
ter of form rather than substance. As it respects the 
cabinet, the principles continued the same ; the interests 
the same ; the objects at which it aimed the same. 

I said that this cabinet had been, during these twelve 
years, little less than despotic. This fact also is noto- 
rious. During this whole period the measures distinctly 
recommended have been adopted by the two Houses of 
Congress with as much uniformity and with as little 
modification, too, as the measures of the British ministry 
have been adopted during the same period by the British 
Parliament. The connection between cabinet councils 
and parliamentary acts is just as intimate in the one 
country as in the other. 

1 Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Gallatin. 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 399 

I said that these three men constituted, to all ejfficient 
purposes, the whole cabinet. This also is notorious. 
It is true that during this period other individuals have 
been called into the cabinet. But they were all of them 
comparatively minor men, such as had no great weight 
either of personal talents or of personal influence to 
support them. They were kept as instruments of the 
master spirits ; and when they failed to answer the 
purpose, or became restive, they were sacrificed or pro- 
vided for. The shades were made to play upon the 
curtain ; they entered ; they bowed to the audience ; 
the}' did what they were bidden ; they said what was 
set down for them. When those who pulled the wires 
saw fit, they passed away. No man knew why they 
entered ; no man knew why they departed ; no man 
could tell whence they came ; no man asked whither 
they were gone. 

From this uniform composition of the cabinet it is 
obvious that the project of the master spirits was that 
of essential influence within the cabinet ; for in such a 
country as ours, so extended, and its interests so compli- 
cated, it is impossible but those who would conduct its 
affairs wisely and with a single eye to the public good 
should strive to call around themselves the highest and 
most independent talents in the nation, at least of their 
own political friends. When this is not tlie case, it 
must be apparent that the leading influences want not 
associates but instruments. The same principle applies 
to the distribution of ofiice out of the cabinet as to 
filling places within it. Some mistakes may be expected 
to happen in selections among candidates for appoint- 
ments at a distance ; but if at any time a cabinet shall 



400 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

be systematically guided in such selection by a regard, 
not to merit or qualifications, but to electioneering ser- 
vices ; if the obvious design be to reward partisans, and 
encourage defection to its party standard, then the 
people may rest assured that the project such cabinet 
has in view is not to serve the public interest, but to 
secure their personal influence, and that they want not 
competency for the employment but subserviency in it. 
How this matter is I shall not assert, not because I have 
not very distinct opinions upon the subject, but because 
the sphere of appointment is too extensive to be com- 
prehended in the grasp of a single individual ; and I 
mean to make no assertion concerning motive or con- 
duct of which there does not exist in my mind evidence 
as well complete as conclusive. I refer to this subject, 
therefore, only as a collateral and corroborative proof of 
the purposes of the cabinet. Every man can decide for 
himself in his own circle or neighborhood concerning 
the apparent principle upon which the cabinet have 
proceeded in making appointments, remembering al- 
ways that the section of country against whose pros- 
perity the policy of the cabinet is most systematically 
levelled will be that in which subserviency to all its 
purposes will be most studiousl}' inculcated among its 
adherents. It will be in that quarter that the flames of 
party animosity will be enkindled with the most sedu- 
lous assiduity, as the means of making men forgetful of 
their true interests, and obedient to their employers, in 
spite of their natural prejudices and inclinations. 

It is natural to inquire what are the projects con- 
nected with the cabinet thus composed, and to what 
ends it is advancing. To answer this question it is 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 401 

necessary to look into the nature and relations of things. 
Here the true criterions of judgment are to he found. 
Professions are always plausible. Why, sir, Bonaparte 
himself is the very milk of human kindness ; he is the 
greatest lover of his species in the world ; he would not 
hurt a sparrow if you take his own account of the 
matter. What, then, do nature and the relations of 
things teach ? They teach this, that the great hazard 
in a government where the chief magistracy is elective 
is from the local ambition of States and the personal 
ambition of individuals. It is no reflection upon any 
State to say that it is ambitious. According to their 
opportunities and temptations all States are ambitious. 
This quality is as much predicable of States as of in- 
dividuals. Indeed, State ambition has its root in the 
same passions of human nature, and derives its strength 
from the same nutriment as personal ambition. All 
history shows that such passions always exist among 
States combined in confederacies. To deny it is to 
deceive ourselves. It has existed, it does exist, and 
always must exist. In our political relations, as in our 
personal, we then walk most safely when we walk with 
reference to the actual existence of things, admit the 
weaknesses, and do not hide from ourselves the dangers, 
to which our nature is exposed. Whatever is true let 
us confess. Nations, as well as individuals, are only 
safe in proportion as they attani self-knowledge, and 
regulate their conduct by it. 

What fact upon this point does our own experience 
present ? It presents this striking one, — that, taking 
the years for which the presidential chair is already 
filled into the account, out of twenty-eight years since 

26 



402 SPEECH OlSr the invasion of CANADA. 

our Constitution was established, the single State of 
Virginia has furnished the President for twenty-four 
years. And, farther, it is now as distinctly known and 
familiarly talked about in this city and vicinity who is 
the destined successor of the present President after the 
expiration of his ensuing term, and known that lie, too, 
is to be a Virginian, as it was known and familiarly 
talked about during the presidency of Mr. Jefferson, 
that the present President was to be his successor. 
And the former was, and the latter is, a subject of as 
much notoriety, and, to human appearance, of as much 
certainty too, as who will be the successor to the Brit- 
ish crown is a matter of notoriety in that country. To 
secure this succession and keep it in the destined line 
has been, is, and will continue to be, the main object of 
the policy of these men. This is the point on which 
the projects of the cabinet for the three years j)ast have 
been brought to bear, that James the First should be 
made to continue four years longer. And this is the 
point on which the projects of the cabinet will be 
brought to bear for the three years to come, that James 
the Second shall be made to succeed, according to the 
fundamental rescripts of the Monticellian dynasty. 

[Mr. Quincy was here again called to order. The 
Speaker said that really the gentleman laid his premises 
so remote from his conclusions that he could not see 
how his observations applied to the bill.] 

Mr. Quincy proceeded : On the contrary, sir, I main- 
tain that both ray premises and conclusions are very 
proximate to each other, and intimately connected with 
the bill on the table, and with the welfare of this peo- 
ple. 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 403 

Is it not within the scope of just debate to show that 
the general policy of the cabinet, and that also this par- 
ticular project, have for their object the aggrandizement 
of the cabinet themselves, or some member of it? If 
this be the object of the bill, is it not proper to be 
exhibited ? The topic may be of a nature high and 
critical, but no man can deny that it is both important 
and relevant. To secure the power they at present 
jDOssess, to perpetuate it in their own hands, and to 
transfer it to their selected favorites, is the great project 
of the policy of the members of our cabinet. It would 
be eas}'' to trace to this master passion the declaration of 
war at the time and under the circumstances in which 
it occurred. Antecedent to the declaration of war, it was 
distinctly stated by individuals from that quarter of the 
country under the influences of which this war was 
adopted, that the support of the present President of 
the United States, by their quarter of the country, 
depended upon the fact of the cabinet's coming up to 
the point of war with Great Britain. This state of 
things, and the knowledge of it by the members of the 
cabinet, was repeatedly urged in conversation by mem- 
bers of this and the other branch of the legislature to 
shake the incredulity in a declaration of war which at 
that time existed in some of our minds. Without placing 
any i-eliance on the reports of that day, this I assert, 
unequivocally and without fear of contradiction, that 
such were the passions which existed in the Southern 
and Western States, and such the avowed determination 
to war, that, had not the cabinet come up to that point, 
its influence in those quarters was at an end. Without 
their support, the re-election of the present Chief Magis- 



404 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

trate was hopeless. Now, sir, when continuance of 
power is put into the scale, as in this instance it was 
unquestionably, it is not for human nature to deny that 
it had not a material influence in determining the 
balance. For myself, I have never had but one opinion 
on this matter, — I have never doubted that we should 
not have had war declared at the last session if the 
presidential election had not been depending. 

Just so with respect to the invasion of Canada. It 
was, in my judgment, a test required by the state of 
opinion in the Southern and Western States of the 
sincerity of the cabinet, and of its heartiness in the 
prosecution of this war. This accounts for the strange 
and headlong haste, and the want of sufficient prepara- 
tion, with which the invasion was expedited. This 
accounts for the neglect to meet the proposition for an 
armistice when made b}^ the Governor of Canada, after 
a knowledge of the revocation of the Orders in Council. 
This accounts for the obtrusive attempts to gain a foot- 
ing in Canada, and the obstinate perseverance in the 
show of invasion until the members of the electoral 
colleges had been definitive! v selected. Since which 
event our armies have been quiet enough. When I see a 
direct dependence between the perpetuation of power in 
any hand, and the adoption of, and the perseverance in, 
any particular course of measures. I cannot refrain from 
believing that such a course has been suggested and 
regulated by so obvious and weighty an interest. This 
subject is capable of much greater elucidation. But 
according to your suggestion, sir, I shall confine myself 
to trace the connection of this master passion of the 
cabinet with the bill now under consideration. 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 405 

The projects of the cabinet for the present year are 
loans, to the amount, at least, of twenty millions ; an 
army, of fifty-five thousand men ; a grand scheme of 
pacification, founded on some legislative acts or resolves ; 
and a perpetuation of the war. The loans are expected 
to be filled partly from the popularity derived in the 
commercial cities by the vote for building seventy-fours, 
partly by opening offices for receiving subscriptions in 
the interior. Whatever is received will be diverted to 
the army service. The grand scheme of pacification 
will be made to appear very fair in terms ; but in the 
state of irritation which has been produced in Great 
Britain by the continuance of the war after the rej)eal 
of the Orders in Council, and by the pertinacious per- 
severance in the threats and preparation to invade 
Canada, it will, it is eicpected, be rejected by her. This, 
it is supposed, will give popularity to the war in this 
country. The forty dollars bounty will, it is hoped, fill 
tlie ranks. The army for the conquest of Canada will 
be raised : to be commanded by whom ? this is the 
critical question. The answer is in every man's mouth. 
By a member of the American cabinet ; by one of the 
three ; by one of that " trio "' who at this moment 
constitute in fact, and who efficiently have always con- 
stituted, the whole cabinet. And the man who is tlms 
ntended for the command of the greatest array this new 
world ever contained, an army nearly twice as great as 
was at any time the regular army of our Revolution, I 
say the man who is intended for this great trust is the 
individual who is notoriously the selected candidate for 
the next presidency ! 

Mr. Speaker, when I assert that the present Secretary 



406 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

of State, who is now the acting Secretary of War, is 
destined, by a cabinet of which he himself constitutes 
one-third, for the command of this army, I know that 
I assert intentions to exist which have not yet developed 
themselves by an official avowal. The truth is, the mo- 
ment for an official avowal has not yet come. The 
cabinet must work along by degrees, and only show 
their cards as they play them. The armj- must first be 
authorized. The bill for the new majors-general must 
be passed. Then, upon their plan, it will be found 
necessary to constitute a lieutenant-general. " And 
who so proper," the cabinet will exclaim, "• as one of 
ourselves ? " " And who so proper as one of the cab- 
inet ?" all its retainers will respond, from one end of 
the continent to the other. I would willingly have 
postponed any animadversion upon this intention of the 
cabinet until it should have been avowed. But then it 
would have been too late. Then the fifty-five thousand 
men would have been authorized, and the necessity for 
a lieutenant-general inevitable. Sir, I know very Avell 
that this public animadversion may possibly stagger the 
cabinet in its purpose. They ma}^ not like to proceed 
in the design after the public eye has been directed 
distinctly upon it. And the existence of it will be 
denied, and its partisans will assert that this suggestion 
was mere surmise. Be it so. It is, comparatively, of 
little importance what happens to my person or char- 
acter, j^rovided this great evil can be averted from my 
country. I consider the raising such an army as this, 
and the putting it under the command of that individual, 
taking into view his connection with the present cabinet, 
so ominous to the liberties of this country that I am not 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 407 

anxious Avhat happens to me, if, b}^ any constitutional 
responsibility, I can prevent it. 

However, to the end that it may not be thought I 
have made this assertion lightly, I will briefly state the 
evidence upon which it is founded, and which to my 
mind has given perfect conviction as to the intentions 
of the cabinet. 

First. As long ago as last June, it was, to my knowl- 
edge, asserted by individuals connected with the admin- 
istration, in this and the other branch of the legislature, 
that it was the intention of the American cabinet to 
place the Secretary of State at the head of the army. 

Second. This intention was, early in the present ses- 
sion, distinctly avowed by members in this and the other 
branch of the legislature, to be the intention of the 
cabinet. And these members were persons intimate 
with the cabinet, and connected with them in politics ; 
and, of all men, the most likely to know their intentions. 
This can be proved, if denied. But it will not be. I 
do not believe there is a man on this floor who is not 
acquainted with the fact as well as mj'self. 

Third. As soon as the session opened, the old Secre- 
tary at War was hunted down. 

Fourth. The burden of the whole department of war 
is now transferred to the shoulders of the Secretary of 
State. This great and oppressive trust which, at the 
last session, it was seriously urged no single living wight 
could bear, but that it required three persons to support 
its pressure, is now cast solely upon this individual, 
who, it seems, is able to uphold the mighty mountain 
of that department in one hand, while he balances the 
department of state in the other. 



408 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

Fifth. The Secretary of State has not merely entered 
into a still-life possession of the department of war. 
He is actively employed in arranging its details, and 
putting it into a state of preparation. This work of 
drudgery it can hardly be expected that any man would 
undertake, for the sake of an unknown successor, unless 
he had himself some prospect of interest in it. 

Sixth. The Secretary of State is no sooner in posses- 
sion of the department of war, than the plan of a great 
army, an efficient pecuniary bounty, and a brilliant 
campaign against Canada, is promulgated : of all which 
he is the known author ; having communicated to the 
Committee on Military Affairs the whole project, not 
only in general, but in its details. Above all, that no 
doubt concerning the ultimate purpose may exist, — 

Seventh. Immediately after the Secretary of State 
enters upon the duties of Secretary at War, he puts to 
Adjutant-General Cushing this question : " How many 
majors-general and, brigadiers are necessary for an 
army of thirty-five thousand men ? " Now, as this 
question was put by authority, and was intended to be 
communicated to Congress, and was in its nature 
very simple, one would have supposed that it would 
have been enough, in all conscience, to have given to 
it a direct answer. Besides, it is not always thought 
proper, for those who are in the under grades of 
departments, when one question is proposed, to enter 
into the discussion of another. However, notwith- 
standing these obvious suggestions, one-half of the 
whole reply of General Cushing is taken up in inves- 
tigating, not the question which was asked, but the 
question on which the honest adjutant, in the sim- 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 409 

plicity of his soul, tells the Secretary, " You have not 
required my opinion." The whole of this part of the 
letter runs thus : — 

" In this country we have never had a grade between 
the commander-in-chief and that of major-general ; hence 
it was found necessar}^ in the 'continental army,' to give 
to the senior major-general the command of the right 
wing, and to the next in rank that of the left ; which, 
from the limited number of general officers, often left 
a division to a brigadier, a brigade to a colonel, and a 
regiment to a subordinate field officer ; but in Europe 
this difficulty is obviated by the appointment of general 
officers of higher grades. 

" From the best information I have been able to obtain 
on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that eight 
majors-general and sixteen brigadiers to command the 
divisions and brigades of an army of thirty-five thousand 
men is the lowest estimate which the uniform practice 
of France, Russia, and England, will warrant ; and that 
this is much below the proportion of officers of these 
grades actually employed in the army of the Revolution. 

" As you have not required my opinion, whether it be 
necessary to have a higher grade than that of major- 
general, I have not deemed it proper to touch this sub- 
ject, and have confined myself to the number of majors- 
general and brigadiers deemed necessary to command 
the divisions and brigades of an army of thirty-five 
thousand men. It may not, however, be improper to 
remark that, if it is intended to have no higher grade 
than that of major-general, their number should be in- 
creased to eleven ; so as to give one for the chief com- 

27 



410 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 

mand, one for each wing, and one for each division of 
four thousand men." 

It is entertaining to see how much trouble the worthy 
adjutant takes to impress upon the mind that the Secre- 
tary of State " had not required his opinion " on the 
subject of a grade higher than that of a major-general. 
He even goes so far as to say that he has '- not deemed 
it proper to touch this subject." 

Now, sir, I think he has touched the subject, and 
treated it pretty thoroughly too. For he has shown, 
not only that it is " difficult " to do without, but that it 
is more economical to have, a grade higher than a major- 
general. And this, too, in an army of only thirty-five 
thousand men. But when this bill passes, the army will 
consist of fifty-five thousand. The result is then inev- 
itable : you must have, in such case, a grade higher than 
a major-general ; in other words, a lieutenant-general. 
Such, it cannot be denied, is the intention of the cabinet. 
As little can it be denied that the Secretary of State, the 
acting Secretary of War, is the cabinet candidate for 
that office. So it has been distinctly avowed by the 
friends and confidants of that cabinet ; and as such, I 
have no question, is known by every individual in this 
House. 

Mr. Speaker, what an astonishing and alarming state 
of things is this ! Three men, who efficiently have had 
the command of this nation for many years, have so 
managed its concerns as to reduce it, from an unex- 
ampled height of prosperity, to a state of great depres- 
sion, — not to say ruin. They have annihilated its 
commerce, and involved it in war. And now the result 
of the whole matter is, that they are about to raise an 



SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 411 

army of fifty-five thousand men, invest one of their own 
body with this most solemn command, and he the man 
who is the destined candidate for the President's chair ! 
What a grasp at power is this ! What is there in history 
equal to it ! Can any man doubt what will be the result 
of this project ? No man can believe that the conquest 
of Canada will be effected in one campaign. It cost the 
British six years to acquire it when it was far weaker 
than at present. It cannot be hoped that we can ac- 
quire it under three or four years. And what then 
will be the situation of this army and our country? 
Why then the army will be veteran ; and the leader a 
candidate for the presidency ! And, whoever is a can- 
didate for the presidency, with an army of thirty thou- 
sand veterans at his heels, will not be likely to be 
troubled with rivals or to concern himself about votes. 
A President elected under such auspices may be nomi- 
nally a President for years ; but really, if he pleases, a 
President for life. 

I know that all this will seem wild and fantastical to 
very many, perhaps to all, who hear me. To my mind, 
it is neither the one nor the other. History is full of 
events less probable, and effected by armies far inferior 
to that which is proposed to be raised. So far from 
deeming it mere fancy, I consider it absolutely certain, 
if this army be once raised, organized, and enter upon 
a successful career of conquest. The result of such a 
power as this, intrusted to a single individual, in the 
present state of parties and passions in this country, no 
man can anticipate. There is no other means of abso- 
lute safety but denying it altogether. 

I cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that the sphere in 



412 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OP CANADA. 

which this great army is destined to operate is in the 
neighborhood of that section of country where it is pro- 
bable, in case the present destructive measures be con- 
tinued in operation, the most unanimous opposition will 
exist to a perpetuation of power in the present hands, or 
to its transfer to its destined successor. I cannot forget 
that it has been distinctly avowed by a member on this 
floor, a gentleman from Virginia too (Mr. Clay), and 
one very likely to know the view of the cabinet, that 
" one object of this army was to put down opposition." 
Sir, the greatness of this project and its consequences 
overwhelm my mind. I know very well to what oblo- 
quy I expose myself by this development. I know 
that it is always an unpardonable sin to pull the veil 
from the party deities of the day, and that it is of a 
nature not to be forgiven either by them or their wor- 
shippers. I have not willingly, nor without long reflec- 
tion, taken upon myself this responsibility. But it has 
been forced upon me by an imperious sense of duty. If 
the people of the Northern and Eastern States are 
destined to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to 
men who know nothing about their interests, and care 
nothing about them, I am clear of the great transgres- 
sion. If, in common with their countrymen, my chilcren 
are destined to be slaves, and to yoke in with negroes, 
chained to the car of a Southern master, they, at least, 
shall have this sweet consciousness as the consolation of 
their condition, — they shall be able to say, " Our father 
was guiltless of these chains." 



RD-49 ' 






t> '*►. 












♦• «*'% \^ 






















-^^0^ 




